so then, what schools have profs and tas that can speak english?

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>
[quote]
I believe I give research universities EXACTLY the credit that they deserve. You may say that there are only a few such profs at such places that are poor teachers and/or who can speak English well. I would argue that that's not exactly the most ringing of endorsements. Top schools are SUPPOSED to provide good teaching to their students and who are SUPPOSED to be able to communicate properly with their students. That's like saying that you're planning to hire McKinsey because you will probably not get a bad consultant.

[/quote]

No, that's not the same at all, because McKinsey consultants are hired solely based on their consulting skills, while professors are hired to teach and conduct research. If you want to talk about bad teaching, look at high schools. I attended one of the top 5 high schools in Illinois, and if I were the principal, over half of them would not have been hired. Keep in mind that these teachers were hired ONLY to teach, and many could barely do that. I shudder to think about the conditions at average high schools. I stand by my statement that I can count on one hand the number of professors I thought were poor teachers, and that is a ringing endorsement, especially because teaching ability was barely a factor in their hiring! Also, I would point out that no hiring policy is 100% effective. Are you saying that not a single bad teacher exists at any LAC in the country, simply because they were hired to teach? Likewise, the top schools are supposed to have the best and brightest students, but I think we can all think of a few people we know who don't deserve to be at those places due to questionable admissions practices. Should I therefore conclude that these schools are undeservingly respected?</p>

<p>I think the current system of universities and LACs serves students quite well. The universities have well known researchers who attract grant money, which in turn attracts top grad students, both of which garner prestige, which in turn attracts the top undergrad students. If they hired professors based equally on teaching ability and research ability, then some of the best researchers would not have been hired, which decreases all of the above effects. I think this is a fair tradeoff, since personally I have been quite satisfied with my experience. For those who need more hand holding, you have LACs and small colleges like Harvey Mudd that have the best teachers, but not the best researchers. Each place fits a different kind of student, so I take exception to your comments that everyone ought to look outside research universities.</p>

22

<p>Sakky,</p>

<pre><code> You make some great points. I've have seen both worlds and I can attest that the teaching is far superior at places that are designed to teach you. I was mostly "satisfied" by the teaching at the large research institution I was at but it was much better at places that have teaching as a primary purpose.

It's not that the big research universities don't have good teachers. In fact they have many. It's not that they suck at education. In fact many are pretty good. What bothers me is that people see the rankings and actually think that big research universities provide superior undergraduate education because they are ranked higher. But nothing could be further from the truth. From my experience, the best places to learn engineering are from places whose #1 goal is to teach you.
</code></pre>

23

<p>But Dr. Reynolds, aren't most of the best engineering schools big research universities? It seems to me that any tech field just begs for new research and innovation. Can smaller colleges that have engineering offer similar research opportunities as the big schools?</p>

<p>I have sent you a few questions by pm...thanks!</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
No, that's not the same at all, because McKinsey consultants are hired solely based on their consulting skills, while professors are hired to teach and conduct research. If you want to talk about bad teaching, look at high schools. I attended one of the top 5 high schools in Illinois, and if I were the principal, over half of them would not have been hired. Keep in mind that these teachers were hired ONLY to teach, and many could barely do that. I shudder to think about the conditions at average high schools. I stand by my statement that I can count on one hand the number of professors I thought were poor teachers, and that is a ringing endorsement, especially because teaching ability was barely a factor in their hiring! Also, I would point out that no hiring policy is 100% effective. Are you saying that not a single bad teacher exists at any LAC in the country, simply because they were hired to teach? Likewise, the top schools are supposed to have the best and brightest students, but I think we can all think of a few people we know who don't deserve to be at those places due to questionable admissions practices. Should I therefore conclude that these schools are undeservingly respected?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, now you're going down a quite dangerous road. So you're basically saying that because other educational organizations offer bad teaching, then it's OK for the top research universities to offer bad teaching too. Is that it? Or if some bad students are admitted to good schools, then that somehow makes it OK for those schools to have bad teachers. </p>

<p>That's pretty darn defeatist. If you're paying a lot of money to attend a top university, I don't think it's unreasonable in the least to expect good teaching. If you pay $100 to eat at a good restaurant, you should expect good service and good food. If you get bad service, you don't just simply shrug your shoulders and say that not everybody's perfect. If you find a fly in your soup, you will demand that the restaurant give you that meal for free. If the waiter spills food on your lap, you will demand redress. Sadly, we live in a world where the same is not expected at the top research universities. When students at such places get bad teaching, they just shrug their shoulders and treat it as a fact of life. Name me another service industry that operates that way. As a student, you're a customer of educational services, and you ought to expect a high level of service. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the current system of universities and LACs serves students quite well. The universities have well known researchers who attract grant money, which in turn attracts top grad students, both of which garner prestige, which in turn attracts the top undergrad students. If they hired professors based equally on teaching ability and research ability, then some of the best researchers would not have been hired, which decreases all of the above effects. I think this is a fair tradeoff, since personally I have been quite satisfied with my experience. For those who need more hand holding, you have LACs and small colleges like Harvey Mudd that have the best teachers, but not the best researchers. Each place fits a different kind of student, so I take exception to your comments that everyone ought to look outside research universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Everybody should indeed look outside research universities and in particular at the LAC's.. Note, that doesn't mean that everybody should go to a LAC. However, I'm sure that you know as well as I that there are plenty of people who don't even bother to look. It's like, as dr_reynolds has pointed out, people take a cursory glance at the rankings and conclude that big research universities provide superior a undergraduate education just because they have highly ranked departments. The fact is, just because you have a department that is highly respected for research does not necessarily mean that that department is good at teaching undergrads. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Can smaller colleges that have engineering offer similar research opportunities as the big schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, I would point to Harvey Mudd. About 40% of Mudd alumni hold PhD's, which is the highest percentage of any undergraduate program in the country. So clearly Mudd is pretty darn good at churning out graduates who are pretty good at research and innovation, despite itself not being a research powerhouse.</p>

25

<p>"Oh, now you're going down a quite dangerous road. So you're basically saying that because other educational organizations offer bad teaching, then it's OK for the top research universities to offer bad teaching too. Is that it? Or if some bad students are admitted to good schools, then that somehow makes it OK for those schools to have bad teachers."</p>

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I really have no idea how you interpretted im_blue's post the way you just did. </p>

<p>his logic (which seemed straightforward to me) was that hs teachers are terrible teachers (and these people are hired specifically for their ability to teach). So just because LAC teachers are hired specifically for teaching does not mean they are any good at it. as he stated, no hiring policy can be 100% effective, schools that hire specifically for teaching ability will not necessarily get the best teachers</p>

<p>His reference to a bad student getting into a good school was an analogy to the fact that poor teaching can exist in LACs, not a justification for having bad teachers</p>

26

<p>In the real work world, you will meet and work with people from all over the world, in all kinds of settings. While English is most often the language of business, many people will have strong accents. They may be your boss, your important client, your colleague. You have to learn to understand them, you have to be able to work with them. This experience at universities is the first of many to come. If you aspire to international consulting (speaking of McKinsey), or a top job in many industries, you must be flexible and open to a wide variety of people.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
his logic (which seemed straightforward to me) was that hs teachers are terrible teachers (and these people are hired specifically for their ability to teach). So just because LAC teachers are hired specifically for teaching does not mean they are any good at it. as he stated, no hiring policy can be 100% effective, schools that hire specifically for teaching ability will not necessarily get the best teachers

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, we are talking about 2 entirely different things. It is clearly true that the level of teaching in high school is not going to be comparable to that of any top universities, whether research universities or LAC's. Let's face it. High school teachers are at a major step below in terms of prestige and in terms of qualifications, than college professors are. </p>

<p>The comparable analogy is that just because McDonald's hires people just to serve and cook food and they do that job badly, then if you go to a high-end restaurant and get bad service and bad food, then you should just shrug your shoulders and accept it. I don't think so. McDonald's and high-class restaurants are 2 completely different things. If you go to McDonalds, you should expect to get shoddy food and shoddy service, even though everybody who's working there was specifically hired to serve and cook food. But I should not have to expect that sort of thing if I'm going to an elite restaurant. Similarly, if I go to a top college, whether research university or LAC, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect top-notch teaching. </p>

<p>Once again, I would remark that you guys seem to be just defeatist, as if it's somehow "OK" for top research universities to have some bad teachers. Why is that OK? These aren't just some scrub no-name schools out there. These are the very best schools with the best prestige, so they need to be held to higher standards. I'm not going to complain about some scrub no-name CalStates not offering the best education. Why should I? Everybody knows that they're not exactly the best schools, so there's nothing to be gained from hassling them. That's like complaining about the food at McDonalds, when everybody already knows that the food there isn't exactly the greatest. However, if you're going to go to a top-end school, you ought to be able to expect top-end service, and if you don't get it, you can and should complain about it. </p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. I never said that the LAC's never have bad teachers. However, the difference is in degree (no pun intended). I think we can all agree that the elite LAC's tend to have better teaching than do the elite research universities. </p>

<p>I would also harken back to dr_reynolds point. The problem is not so much that there are some bad teachers at the research universities. Some people know full well that they may not be getting the best teachers, but go to those schools anyway for other reasons (i.e. the prestige). The real problem is that an erroneous equivalence is drawn between departments with top research capabilities and departments that offer good undergraduate teaching.</p>

<p>In short, what I am saying is that we need to have better respect for the LAC's and what they are trying to do. I see the LAC's being dismissed over and over again on the highly dubious grounds that they supposedly don't offer good research opportunities or that they don't prepare their students well to become researchers. Go tell the 40% of all Harvey-Mudd alumni who have obtained their doctorates (which is the highest percentage of any undergraduate program in the country) that LAC's don't do a good job of preparing their students for research.</p>

28

<p>My argument to what you say is simple. If what the LAC do is so great why have they not risen in the eyes of industry? Why is it year after year the top engineers come from the top research institutes, not the top LAC. the statistics can be seen on by US News. industry (who hires on engineering ability) prefers the top research universities over the LACs</p>

29

<p>spe07, your argument is not true. Industry loves the graduates from the teaching focused universities. In my area we consistently get feedback from companies that our students are better than the students from the local large research university. </p>

<p>Rankings have little to do with teaching quality. First, notice that they are ranked seperately. Second, the rankings have a lot to do with research and tradition. The big schools have been around longer and have graduated a lot more engineers. Thus there are a lot more executives from these schools who would rate them as good.</p>

<p>I've seen graduates from out of my school and I think they compare well with graduates from the top 10 institution that I went to.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
My argument to what you say is simple. If what the LAC do is so great why have they not risen in the eyes of industry? Why is it year after year the top engineers come from the top research institutes, not the top LAC. the statistics can be seen on by US News. industry (who hires on engineering ability) prefers the top research universities over the LACs

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? Is that a fact? Are you really sure that industry prefers those who are coming out of the top research universities? </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. The average salary of all graduates (of all fields - engineering, science, math, etc.) of Harvey Mudd in 2003 was $53,900. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Let's compare that to an elite engineering research university - oh, I don't know, Berkeley. Forget about all the humanities and social science majors, and let's just look at the starting salaries earned by just the engineering students at Berkeley in 2003.</p>

<p>EECS - $55923
Mechanical Engineering - $50447
Chemical Engineering - $50517
Civil Engineering - $48312
BioEngineering - $41571
Materials Science - $41337</p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2003Majors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2003Majors.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So look at what we're talking about here. The data indicates that the average Mudd grad actually got HIGHER salaries than the average engineering discipline at Berkeley except for EECS, and, like I said, that Mudd data includes some people who majored in the natural sciences, who tend to earn less than do engineers. Let's also keep in mind that Northern California tends to be a more expensive place to live (and hence offers higher salaries) than does SoCal. </p>

<p>Now you might be thinking, well maybe there's just something strange going on with Berkeley. Ok fine, then let's take a look at the Gold Standard of engineering research universities, MIT. What kinds of salaries did bachelor's degree recipients in engineering from MIT receive in 2003?</p>

<p>course 1 (Civil Engineering - no information available
course 2 (Mechanical Engineering) - $48353
course 3 (Materials Science) - $51000
course 6 ( EECS) - $59703
course 10 (Chemical Engineering) - $46500
course 13 (Ocean Engineering) - $51000
course 16 (Aero/Astronautical Engineering) - $48477
course 22 (Nuclear Engineering) - $37000</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation03.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation03.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The Harvey Mudd salary data and the MIT engineering salary data look pretty darn comparable to me. </p>

<p>So, spe07, you tell me what's going on. Here are these employers paying Mudd grads comparable salaries to, and in many cases, HIGHER salaries than, engineering grads from the elite research universities. What's going on? Why is that? I thought you said that the industry prefers the top research universities over the top LAC's. So then why were companies paying such high salaries to the Mudders? Are those companies just being stupid in throwing their money away? </p>

<p>Now, look. I'm not saying this stuff just because I'm a Mudd fanatic. I've never been to Mudd, I have no affiliation with Mudd. In fact, my affiliation is far more aligned with the big research universities. I'm not saying that everybody should go to a LAC or that LAC's are perfect.</p>

<p>However, what I am saying is that we ought to have more respect for the elite LAC's. The elite LAC's do a pretty darn good job at teaching and preparing their students for jobs or for academia. Obviously when you're talking about elite engineering, you can't talk about LAC's like Williams or Amherst, because they don't even offer engineering. But you can and should talk about LAC's that do offer strong engineering like Mudd does. </p>

<p>I also boost the LAC's because I detect a very strong whiff of compromise inherent in this conversation. What I mean is that many research universities compromise some teaching acumen for research fecundity, and they've gotten their undergraduate students to accept this compromise as somehow "justified". Basically, what I see time and time again is that whenever the shortcomings of the teaching ability of a particular research university are pointed out, the university administrators will inevitably pull out the old refrain that that's the price you pay to be around research greatness. The unwritten Faustian bargain is that the undergrads have to (sometimes) put up with shoddy teaching in order to enhance their opportunities to be around top researchers and large research projects, and supposedly this proximity to research will enhance their potential to enter academic graduate programs. The implication is that if you don't go to a research university, you won't have an opportunity to participate in research yourself, and so you wont' be competitive for a PhD program. Tell that to the Harvey Mudd alumni, which have the the highest rate of doctoral completion of any undergraduate program in the country.</p>

<p>"According to data from the National Research Council and the U.S. Department of Education, Harvey Mudd College has the highest percentage of graduates who go on to earn doctoral degrees in science and technology."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mentornet.net/Partners/Campuses/CampusInfo.aspx?CampusCode=HMCXX%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mentornet.net/Partners/Campuses/CampusInfo.aspx?CampusCode=HMCXX&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>""Everyone has heard of M.I.T. and Cal Tech, but most laymen would be surprised to learn that Harvey Mudd College has a higher percentage of its graduates go on to receive doctorates than either of these renowned institutions. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.leaderu.com/choosingcoll...g/chpter04.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.leaderu.com/choosingcoll...g/chpter04.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"An even better comparison would be among all colleges and universities, using percentages of students continuing on to the Ph.D., to allow for differences in their respective sizes. On this basis, the liberal arts colleges outdo the universities decisively when it comes to the proportion of their graduates who go on to complete the doctorate. For a 30-year period beginning in 1951, the following institutions had more than one-eighth of their graduates go on to receive the Ph.D.: </p>

<ol>
<li> Harvey Mudd College </li>
<li> California Institute of Technology </li>
<li> Reed College </li>
<li> University of Chicago </li>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology </li>
<li> Swarthmore College </li>
<li> Haverford College </li>
<li> Oberlin College </li>
<li> Harvard University </li>
<li> New College of the University of South Florida </li>
<li> University of California at San Diego </li>
<li>* Amherst College </li>
<li>* Carleton College </li>
<li>* Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art </li>
<li>* Pomona College </li>
<li> Rice University </li>
<li> Brandeis University </li>
<li> Eckerd College </li>
<li> Wabash College </li>
<li> Bryn Mawr College
*Tied in ranking.
Source: Change magazine, Nov./Dec., 1986 </li>
</ol>

<p>Liberal arts colleges outnumber universities 10 to 6 among these 20 institutions, with the other 4 being engineering schools (Harvey Mudd, Cal Tech, M.I.T., Cooper Union). Such renowned universities as Yale, Stanford, and Princeton do not have as high a proportion of their alumni go on to receive Ph.D.'s as any of the colleges on this list. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amatecon.com/etext/cac/cac-ch03.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amatecon.com/etext/cac/cac-ch03.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So then that simply begs the question - why are all these doctoral programs admitting such a high percentage of graduates from the LAC's, if the LAC's are no good? Are the doctoral programs being stupid? I'm sure there are MIT students who really wanted to go to a particular doctoral program but got turned down in favor of a Mudder. Was the program being stupid in doing that?</p>

31

<p>What I said before came out terribly wrong, sorry about that</p>

<p>People defending LACs make it seem as though it would be better for you to go to a mediocore LAC over a top research university. I personally don't see a difference when you compare a school like MIT and Harvey Mudd, they are both extremely good schools. But it seems like some are trying to justify that lower LACs give better a education than the top research schools. If 2 equal (on paper) candidates were competing for the same job I would venture a guess that industry would take the one from the elite research university over someone from an average LAC. That is what i was trying to say but it came out terribly wrong</p>

<p>As for your point about PhD I think the data is missing something. The list you provide has 1 state school on it, which seems to an inherent flaw of this data. I think it is fair to say that the average student at state schools come from lower income family and many of these students have to work after completing a BS or MS, they simply don't have the time or the money to go on for a PhD. There are completely different demographics at these schools making them difficult to compare in that way. LAC students can also be very smart (especially at the top ones), never said they weren't, I just feel that some are trying to say lower LACs are somehow better than top univ</p>

32

<p>Exactly, some people around here are making it sound like you should choose a school like University of Arkansas, Fort Smith over a top 10 research institution simply because the former hires "real teachers."</p>

33

<p>Nobody, least of all me, is trying to say that you should choose a scrub LAC over an elite research university. Obviously there are plenty of bad LAC's out there.</p>

<p>However, as I'm sure you would agree, there are plenty of people who have been led to believe that they should turn down an elite LAC for a mediocre research university. And that's just as wrong as saying that you should turn down an elite research university for a mediocre LAC. As dr_reynolds said, people see that the elite LAC's don't show up in departmental rankings and then make the simplistic conclusion that they must be no good. The logical offshoot of this is that just because a school doesn't have superfamous profs or large-scale research projects, then they must be bad schools. The elite LAC's are living disproofs of that notion. Like you said, schools like Harvey Mudd offer excellent technical educations. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As for your point about PhD I think the data is missing something. The list you provide has 1 state school on it, which seems to an inherent flaw of this data. I think it is fair to say that the average student at state schools come from lower income family and many of these students have to work after completing a BS or MS, they simply don't have the time or the money to go on for a PhD. There are completely different demographics at these schools making them difficult to compare in that way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, there are 2 state schools on that list. UCSD and New College. New College is a public school, part of the Florida public higher education system.</p>

<p>I would also point out that while Cooper Union is private, tuition at Cooper Union is free. Hence, it's a pretty darn good financial option especially if you come from NYC because you can then live at home and basically go to college for free. Hence, for the purposes of accessibility to less privileged, I would say that Cooper Union is actually 'better' than many public schools. </p>

<p>I would also point out that if you're talking about people who are truly poor, many of the elite private schools will often times be cheaper than public schools will because the elite private schools tend to be extremely aggressive when it comes to financial aid. I know 2 people who came from unpriviliged backgrounds who got into Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that it was actually cheaper for them to go to Harvard once financial aid was factored in. One guy even joked to me that he really wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. Obviously these guys are exceptions, but nevertheless I would point out that the relationship between family income and having to work after graduation is not as simple as people often times think it is. If those 2 guys had gone to Berkeley, they would have come out with debts. Instead, they went to Harvard and came out completely debt-free (and in fact actually MADE money by going to Harvard), and hence were completely financially capable to pursue graduate school, which they both happily did. </p>

<p>Now if you are referring to the general theme that college students in general tend to be richer than those who don't go to college, and the best college students tend to come from richer families, well, that's something that transcends the public vs. private issue. The fact is, students that go to the best schools, whether public or private, tend to come from richer backgrounds than do students who go to worse schools (public or private), who themselves tend to come from richer backgrounds than do students who don't go to college at all. This is a general issue of the preparedness of certain socioeconomic groups for college, and their propensity forthwith, not something that can be analyzed through a simple public/private delineation.</p>

34

<p>I actually think we (University of Arkansas - Fort Smith) do a better job than Purdue for undergraduate engineering education. And I can say this since I have spent much time at both places, I feel this is an informed opinion. I cannot comment so specifically on other top-10 institutions. We do a better job because we have awesome teachers that love to teach and are dedicated to teaching. We have small classes (average = 15) and faculty who are very available to students. And we all have experience in industry as well as Phds/teaching experience from "top 25" institutions. </p>

<p>Our professors have credentials that are just as good as professors at many schools. In fact many of us were offered positions at major research institutions (myself included) but we turned them down to find a school that was built around teaching undergraduate students. Of course we are pretty new so we have not had time to build the reputation that other schools have.</p>

35

<p>"I would also point out that if you're talking about people who are truly poor, many of the elite private schools will often times be cheaper than public schools will because the elite private schools tend to be extremely aggressive when it comes to financial aid. I know 2 people who came from unpriviliged backgrounds who got into Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that it was actually cheaper for them to go to Harvard once financial aid was factored in. One guy even joked to me that he really wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. Obviously these guys are exceptions, but nevertheless I would point out that the relationship between family income and having to work after graduation is not as simple as people often times think it is. If those 2 guys had gone to Berkeley, they would have come out with debts. Instead, they went to Harvard and came out completely debt-free (and in fact actually MADE money by going to Harvard), and hence were completely financially capable to pursue graduate school, which they both happily did. </p>

<p>Now if you are referring to the general theme that college students in general tend to be richer than those who don't go to college, and the best college students tend to come from richer families, well, that's something that transcends the public vs. private issue. The fact is, students that go to the best schools, whether public or private, tend to come from richer backgrounds than do students who go to worse schools (public or private), who themselves tend to come from richer backgrounds than do students who don't go to college at all. This is a general issue of the preparedness of certain socioeconomic groups for college, and their propensity forthwith, not something that can be analyzed through a simple public/private delineation."</p>

<p>I was not refering to either of these points that you made. I was not talking about "truly poor" students. I was talking about your typical middle class kid from Illinois that simply couldn't afford to go to a private school such as Harvey Mudd, Cooper Union (because the cost of living in NY for a year would be more expensive than attending a state school), etc. and are in essence forced to go to UIUC for lack of another option. This student may have to go directly into industry after their BS/MS simply because they need the money. Why spend 4+ years going for a PhD when they could begin their career and earn money that would immediately help them and their family? People aren't always lucky enough to be able to wait those 4 years (even if they get a full scholarship) to simply stay in school. Situations like those will skew the above statistic</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
I actually think we (University of Arkansas - Fort Smith) do a better job than Purdue for undergraduate engineering education. And I can say this since I have spent much time at both places, I feel this is an informed opinion. I cannot comment so specifically on other top-10 institutions. We do a better job because we have awesome teachers that love to teach and are dedicated to teaching. We have small classes (average = 15) and faculty who are very available to students.

[/quote]

No, IMHO this is a highly biased opinion. Small class sizes are all well and good, but a good Engineering education entails far more than that. You need to be surrounded by equally talented and motivated students so that the classes don't need to be taught to the "lowest common denominator" and so your degree will be worth something to employers. A student with a 3.7 from a top 10 school, including Purdue, will get into the top graduate programs and get hired by the top employers, while I surmise that someone with a 3.7 from UAFS won't even get a second look. UAFS's web site says that "Our engineers are in demand and are getting jobs and internships in the Fort Smith area." That's all well and good, unless you're planning on looking for jobs outside a city of 80,000 people, or even outside Arkansas. Let's face it, Engineering is a professional degree, and graduates want some assurance of employment opportunities. Does it really matter if your average class size is 15 and you can talk to your professors any time of the day if your degree isn't worth much? Also, the UAFS web site quotes a student/faculty ratio of 19:1, which is worse than or comparable to top research universities!</p>

<p>
[quote]
And we all have experience in industry as well as Phds/teaching experience from "top 25" institutions.

[/quote]

Really? The UAFS web site says that your faculty got their degrees from University of Oklahoma (ranked #94 in EE by NRC), Colorado State (#65 in Mechanical Engineering), and Texas Tech (#69 in EE). The Dean doesn't appear to have a PhD, but an MS from University of Missouri-Rolla (#50 in MechE, #81 in EE).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Our professors have credentials that are just as good as professors at many schools. In fact many of us were offered positions at major research institutions (myself included) but we turned them down to find a school that was built around teaching undergraduate students.

[/quote]

I find that hard to believe given the above facts. Purdue has a great Engineering program, but certainly not the others.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course we are pretty new so we have not had time to build the reputation that other schools have.

[/quote]

Your open admissions policy might have something to do with that, too. Given all the facts I have presented above, can you still say with a straight face that UAFS offers a superior Engineering education than top research universities, or even any research university for that matter? Now I don't mean to pick on UAFS, but let's be realistic here. Your claims are just not supported by the facts. I believe there are a handful of non-research universities (maybe 5 to 10, including Harvey Mudd, Cooper Union, Olin, and Rose-Hulman) that offer an Engineering education comparable to that of top research universities, but the quality drops off steeply after that (I believe San Jose State is ranked in the top 10!). You are doing a disservice to prospective Engineering students by suggesting that they should look for small class sizes and teaching professors above all else, including academic prestige and employment opportunities.</p>

37

<p>Im_blue,</p>

<pre><code>Interesting that you did your homework. Some of the professors have teaching/research experience at top 25 universities that was not listed...but that's not the point. I've experienced 7 years at Purdue and I know quite a bit about the program. How many years have you spent there? And you know nothing about the UAFS program, except what is listed on the website. Like I said, I'm only making the comparision between the two schools.

Remember that I'm not saying that we are better than every top 10 school or that we are better than Rose-Hulman or Harvey Mudd. And you make a good point in that our average student is not as good as Purdue. But as our reputation builds we are getting some excellent students. Our average ACT of our incoming class was 26 and this is with an open enrollment policy that lets in some crappy students that get weeded out in their freshman math courses. We have many 30+ ACTs in our program.

Like I said before, you know nothing about our program. I bet you know little about Purdue's ME program. I was a TA in six different courses and I taught a lecture course there so I got a unique view of the school. UA - Fort Smith and Purdue have very similar curriculum and often use the same texts. And altough Purdue has a lot more lab equipment, if you actually compare the lundergrad lab experience of the two schools they are suprisingly similar! The difference is in the professors. I've seen many professors at Purdue that had one office hour a week, would not respond to emails and used the same notes they have been using for the past 20 years. Many of them were great researchers, but they were not excellent in the classroom. Other Purdue professors were difficult to understand. And having class sizes of 50+ for even upper level didn't help either. What I saw was a bunch of kids that had to learn from each other, not the professor. What I saw was a lot of professors that didn't really care about their teaching. Of course some did and were excellent.
</code></pre>

<p>Folks, these "top research universities" don't focus on teaching undergraduate students. For many professors this is a very low priority. And it makes a difference in the classroom and the overall experience of the school when you see professors that love to teach and are given the time and incentive to do so. I would love to have im_blue on our campus to see this, as well as perspective students. It's an amazing difference! And this can be see at other places like Rose-Hulman and Harvey Mudd (though I have not been there myself).</p>

38

<p>"Folks, these "top research universities" don't focus on teaching undergraduate students. For many professors this is a very low priority. And it makes a difference in the classroom and the overall experience of the school when you see professors that love to teach and are given the time and incentive to do so. I would love to have im_blue on our campus to see this, as well as perspective students. It's an amazing difference! And this can be see at other places like Rose-Hulman and Harvey Mudd (though I have not been there myself)."</p>

<p>And you can see the same thing at major research universities as well. Profs on my campus as well as others that I know have open office hours, set up multiple problem sessions each week to go over additional problems, respond to students emails immediately, and grade portions of every HW to see how the students are doing. There are numerous changes made every year based off surveys given to students about the appropriate difficulty of courses, evaluation of textbooks, and evaluation of teachers. Profs here learn everyones name and force students to call them by their first name to create a more personallized learning experience. I do not know what more you could possibly ask from a teacher. In addition to this they welcome undergrads to be involved in their research, I emailed 3 profs this semester about possibly working in their lab, and within a day had confirmations from each, I simply had to pick the one that I wanted. What more can you possibly ask for?</p>

<p>I will let you have your opinion that UAFS, with its 4 professor department can rival the education given at top research universities. There is no physical way for you to even offer the breadth of education that is offered at larger schools, I would be willing to bet that you can barely even offer the minimum requirements. Seeing as how you really only concentrate on 1 thing when you get a PhD and there are only 2 ME professors there it is impossible (or an injustice to the students) for these professors to have a broad enough education to teach advanced electives in areas outside of their concentration.</p>

39

<p>spe07,</p>

<pre><code>We actually have a lot more than 4 professors...we work with the University of Arkansas and their professors as well. They send their best teaching faculty down to our campus to teach some of the upper level courses. In total we have something like 15 ME faculty and 15 EE faculty.

Like I've said many times before, there are a number of great teachers at the big schools. But there are also a number of ones who are poor (at least this is what I have seen personally). And the large schools care about research first, not teaching. Schools like ours care about students first and it makes quite a difference. Only those who have experienced such can really speak knowledgeably on the subject.
</code></pre>

40

<p>
[quote]
Like I said, I'm only making the comparision between the two schools.

[/quote]

[quote]
Folks, these "top research universities" don't focus on teaching undergraduate students.

[/quote]

No, I believe it's clear that you're claiming that every teaching institution offers a better education than every research institution based on your experience with the two schools.

[quote]
We actually have a lot more than 4 professors...we work with the University of Arkansas and their professors as well. They send their best teaching faculty down to our campus to teach some of the upper level courses.

[/quote]

Your web site says that University of Arkansas faculty teach the upper level courses. Oh no, since UA is a research institution, their teaching must be horrendous!</p>