<p>Son’s classes were all in biological science. These were $100+ heavy books. In fact, he had to buy two such tomes for one of the classes. Perhaps this isn’t so for other subjects.</p>
<p>Science and math majors have texts-upper level liberal arts–not so much.</p>
<p>barrons–that makes sense.</p>
<p>In music, we only had a couple of texts–History & Theory!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is very interesting. It reinforces something that I was told by a young faculty person I consulted when looking at LACs for S.This faculty said that the Williams students were very diligent in preparing for discussion, but were often unwilling to depart from the arguments advanced by the authors. Her frame of reference was Harvard where she had been an undergrad and later grad TF. She said Harvard students were often unprepared (the famous Harvard commitment to ECs) but were great at “b.s. ing” (her words) their way in sections.
The most inspiring teacher I had in college was a terrible lecturer. But he was extremely well-read in several languages and disciplines and full of insights, and more important, full of great questions. For those willing to follow his train of thought, which could often meander from the subject at hand, he was a font of knowledge and ways of looking at issues.
I have always been leery of trying to describe what makes a teacher “good” as it varies so much: “entertaining” “great anecdotes” “well structured lectures” “well organized” “friendly” “accessible”. All these are fine; but, ultimately, has the student learned anything of lasting value? Not just names and dates but new ways of looking at the world, new ways of approaching a topic? Has the student been challenged to think differently? To write better?
I am also leery of the research/teaching dichotomy. The top LACs do put a lot of emphasis on publishing as a criterion for granting tenure. And many of these profs structure their courses around the research topics that most interest them at a particular time. It is not really different from what profs at research universities do. Profs at research universities are often accused of focusing on their grad students. My S’s experience has not borne that out. The same prof who taught grad courses also taught lower level courses (granted, not pre-calc or calc, but the level above).
What I have found is that profs in certain fields are often criticized for their poor teaching no matter what their country of origin or their current institution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This depends on the subject. They are used more heavily in the sciences and math-related subjects, such as economics, than in humanities and some social science courses.</p>
<p>Regarding textbooks: S took a couple of courses from profs who were writing their own textbooks (in math and physics). One of the tasks of the students was to critique the different chapters. In another thread, some parents lamented that at their child’s college, students were required to buy the college’s version of widely available textbooks. These came in loose photocopies and were sold at $100 or so. Because it was the college’s copy, there was no way of buying used copies. My S’s textbooks also came in loose photocopies but were made available free of charge to the students. In some other courses in different fields, many of the assigned readings were articles available online free of charge to the students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This sounds like another way of describing regurgitating bookworms. I certainly hope Williams students are much more than this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This sounds like another ways of describing smart slackers that Harvard admission system is supposed to weed out. Can any else corroborate this observation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As others have said, depends on the subject area. But I would argue the same goes at non-elite schools. I have taught history at several solid, but certainly not elite, public universities and I have never assigned a textbook with the exception of American History 101 and even then there were supplemental books/readings that were far more important and interesting.</p>
<p>Paperchaserpop:
Harvard students are notorious for their devotion to their ECs, whether it is the Harvard Crimson or their singing groups, their community service, etc… For instance, David Halberstam once said that at Harvard, he majored in “The Crimson.” It’s easier to do this if one is in a humanities or social sciences discipline with infrequent assignments, far more difficult if one is in a math or science field with weekly psets.
But Harvard’s admission puts a lot of premium on “interesting” students–the prodigy violinist, the founder of this or that, so it’s not surprising that once in, the students keep on with their extra-curricular activities.
I can’t say anything one way or the other about Williams students. I’m just reporting what someone with experience at both Williams and Harvard told me; it sounds similar to what another poster said. However, I have met Williams grads, and they don’t seem to me to be any different from Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Chicago grads.</p>
<p>marite - I have no doubt that Harvard students are passionately committed to their ECs, but the vast majority of them were accepted to Harvard because they also had stellar GPAs inspite of their tremendous time commitment to ECs. We are talking about high caliber kids that can do mulitple things and do them all very very well. This is why I was surprised to hear that they come to class “unprepared”.</p>
<p>I had both experiences in my education. As an undergraduate, I was involved in ECs, but my main focus was on my academic work. I rarely if ever came to class unprepared. In law school, I clearly “majored” in Law Review. There were a couple of semesters, and a couple of classes in each of them, when I rarely if ever came to class prepared. (Some of my classes I did the work for, others not really.)</p>
<p>Both approaches were educationally valid. My law school grades were not as good as my undergraduate ones, but those in my last semester (when I was mostly free of L. Rev. responsibilities) were actually better. And there is no question that I learned at least as much by being a law review editor than I did in all of my classes during that period combined. (But I spent more time on it, too).</p>
<p>You’d be surprised how many have not done the readings by section time! One of my S’s chums put in some 20 hours a week into his ECs. That’s not counting his 10 work-study hours (where he could actually do some of his readings). That kind of time commitment is not unknown. I think regular response papers were introduced to force students to do the readings in a more timely manner than leaving most of it to reading period. In my days, response papers were unknown. The now shrunken reading period will probably help in that regard, too. It used to be a whole month long (if one counts Christmas break); it’s now going to be a week in the fall.</p>