<p>wow if both of you are that defensive on a message board i can only imagine what you are/will be like in class when someone disagrees with you or questions you. Duke is a diverse place with diverse opinions about religion and all other kinds of things . . . get used to it because people of all religions/races/sexual orientations/economic backgrounds will be in your classes and have very different opinions about things.</p>
<p>exactly alex. so, why don't we get off the pointless battle and come back to the original question?</p>
<p>stevenlee, I didn't mean to sound negative about Duke. But the majority of Duke-Harvard crossadmits do, in fact, choose Harvard, and I'd assume those who don't have carefully researched their decision (after all, Harvard presents a powerful image).</p>
<p>Chilllllll Pillllllll</p>
<p>i actually PMed accionara about turning down Harvard for duke. his reason is that harvard's undergrad education is really poor, and not given as much attention. sounds like a credible reason to me.</p>
<p>Harvard? Poor undergraduate education? This is news to me.</p>
<p>Poor is obviously too strong a word.</p>
<p>I think what is meant is that it's neglected. The students, being as bright as they are, manage to learn a great deal anyway, but their faculty are not as invested as they are at a place like Duke.</p>
<p>This is a stereotype - I have no idea whether it's actually true, but that might be what chlor is referencing.</p>
<p>It's probably no more true at Harvard than at any top university where prestigious professors busy themselves with prestigious research and prestigious graduate students.</p>
<p>Well, you've just talked in a circle.</p>
<p>Of course professors neglect their undergrads where they "busy" themseleves with research. This is a tautology.</p>
<p>I would not, however, associate this with being in, say, US News's top 15 universities. I would argue that some are definitely better in this arena than others.</p>
<p>Clearly, no one can really verify that, but it may be true. But from what I've heard from Harvard undergrads that I know - including my cousin - the whole "lack of teaching quality" thing is kind of a myth. A potshot at the king of the hill, so to speak.</p>
<p>Sure, but there are some objective indicators that could be used. I have no idea what the results would be, but if one were to research this:</p>
<p>1.) What percentage of faculty promotions are based in part on teacher evaluations? What about faculty hires at all - do faculty, say, give a demonstration lecture, or do they ignore all of that completely and only read the faculty member's grant applications and research publications?</p>
<p>2.) What percentage of full-time faculty teach undergrads, especially intro-level classes? Does this number diminish as faculty experience grows?</p>
<p>3.) How big is the average class?</p>
<p>4.) Is there a policy by which professors can use research dollars to "buy" their way out of teaching requirements? (Are there teaching requirements at all?) If so, how often does this happen?</p>
<p>I want to reemphasize that I do not know the answers - I only know that such answers exist, and I expect that they do vary somewhat from school to school.</p>
<p>How did I get here from talking about the Bible??</p>