It appears that there are some idealized college or university characteristics that forum posters seem to like for undergraduate study, but which hardly any college or university offers all of.
A. Small class sizes.
B. Sufficient capacity exists so that the school can hold the line on small class sizes without shutting any student out of a class because it is too full.
C. All class sessions led by regular faculty, with minimal or no use of TAs or adjuncts.
D. Good selection of majors, and good selection of course offerings in each major, including core junior/senior level courses for the major offered at least every year (preferably every semester if part of a sequence of prerequisites).
E. Undergraduate research opportunities (which presumes that there is some research activity at the school).
F. Low cost.
How possible would such a college or university be? Or, perhaps more specifically, how low cost could such a college or university with all of the other characteristics be? Would not having non-academic features like dorms, food service, and other services be acceptable to reduce costs?
You’re not going to get all of those things in one school.
You might be able to get the small classes, always taught by regular faculty, at a liberal arts college, but in that environment, research opportunities will be limited.
A research university will offer the research opportunities, but you’re likely to see larger class sizes, especially in popular majors, and substantial use of TAs.
Yes, that’s what you’ll get, usually, at virtually any LAC.
Perhaps, but not necessarily. In fact, at some LACs you might get more (or better) research opportunities than you’d get at many large universities.
At a few research universities, average class sizes are comparable to the numbers at some LACs. Example: UChicago (~76% of classes have < 20 students, ~5% >= 50 according to its US News “Academic Life” profile).
Still, I’d agree that almost any college will compromise on one or more of the OP’s criteria. The compromises will tend to be a little different at LACs v. research universities (roughly along the lines Marian describes). With more public demand and greater investment in higher education, more colleges could be minimizing these compromises.
Meanwhile, the richest schools (both LACs and universities) will tend to have fewer or less severe compromises (on factors A-E, if not on sticker price). Hence they attract many applicants (and tend to be very selective).
A lot depends on your own efforts to seek out a good “fit” in choosing a college, then to seek out the best classes and other opportunities wherever you wind up.
Many top masters universities in the 1970s seemed to satisfy the idealized college model put forth by UCBalumnus. They were low cost, with some research activity, generally small class sizes, a large selection of majors, and few TAs. The non academic facilities seem to pale in comparison to what we have today (based on what I’ve read on this site as well as others).
However, many LACs other than the richest or most expensive ones compromise in B ([example](http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1556885-no-calc-101-for-you-p1.html)), C (use of adjuncts and sometimes undergraduate TAs, as indicated by parents of LAC students indicating that the student had such opportunities), D (where some majors’ course offerings are sparse or infrequently offered), or F (seems that almost everyone complains about costs everywhere).
However, at the frosh/soph level, popular common courses like introductory chemistry, biology, economics, physics, and psychology are quite large. Since the relatively few large classes are larger and more popular, the chance of getting them as a frosh/soph student at Chicago is higher than the percentages above may imply. See https://classes.uchicago.edu/browse.php .
I think a sizable minority of schools have A and B and almost all schools have E. Even at non-research universities, the mantra is publish or die. Research assistants are needed, and if you have an interest you can find those opportunities. At lower tiered colleges(I have no interest in defining lower tiered. Use any definition you want.) there are a smaller percent of students who have an academic interest in research, but the opportunities are there.
C is a smaller subset, but does exist, mostly at schools that don’t have a doctoral program. Schools that have a doctoral program need to give those students an opportunity to teach.
D depends on your definition. Some smaller schools don’t have a business major, but have economics. A smaller engineering school will have Mechanical, but not the subset of Aerospace. How critical are the specialties, and are they better served at the Masters level.
That leaves F. This depends on your EFC. If it is low, than I think it is possible to find schools that match your criteria. Most likely at privates, as a lot of publics will not match all need. If you have an exceedingly high EFC, than you don’t care about F. If you are in the middle, you are screwed on F.
@bp0001, if you are in the middle, in-state schools may be affordable. Also, you be able to get merit money if you/your stats are desirable enough.
Paying is more of a problem if you are poor and not good enough to get in to the full-need schools or get merit money.
I’ll leave F alone because that would depend on family circumstance, but it seems that many honors colleges in RU’s, private RU’s, and top LACs can meet the other criteria. It becomes tougher, though, if prestige (or recruiting in to prestige industries) is also a criteria.
Agree @PurpleTitan, but I think the schools that tend to satisfy A and B, are the schools that tend to meet full need. At a minimum, there is a significant overlap in these pools. Regardless, whether F is satisfied is dependent on the family situation in most cases. While not trying to be an exhaustive list, just schools my kids have researched, I think Rochester, Dickinson, Bucknell and Lafayette all fit the bill of the original poster.
My kids were only focused on D and E, and as their parents, we were focused on getting good educational value (which varied by kid, depending on their interests and needs) not on sticker price.
My kids all reported some unbelievable experiences in huge class sizes- anathema to the CC community. A materials science class taught by a brilliant researcher AND brilliant teacher which had standing room only in the university’s largest lecture hall. History lectures taught by one of the greatest historians on the faculty- kids sat in the hall with the doors open even if they couldn’t enroll in the class for credit.
One of the highlights of my college experience was a Shakespeare class which was one of the largest classes at the university- every single semester for a decade or more. Students would leave the class in tears. So I don’t buy into the “fetishization” of small classes at college. I took seminars which were snoozes (good professor but other students who wouldn’t shut up) and big lectures which were life altering.
Glad my kids didn’t look at class size. Junior and senior year in virtually any major will have ample opportunity for the 12 students around the table model. But don’t cheat yourself out of learning from a major, stellar intellect (whose classes are always oversubscribed because they are brilliant teachers and scholars) out of a misguided need to sit at the oracle’s feet.
And yes, I got into grad school with personal and compelling references. A good professor maintains many opportunities to connect with students one at a time.
@ucbalumnus: You have described to a T my undergrad experience at Reed. A few largish lectures, but with regular professors not only lecturing but also handling the smaller discussion sections (called “conferences” at Reed). A ton of undergraduate research activity at all levels, including a senior thesis project by all students (not just by “honors” students, as at many other colleges).
The only one of your criteria that Reed doesn’t meet is F (low cost). In fact, it was pretty low cost when I attended, with tuition, room, and board totaling about $2,000 my first year. That is only $15,800 in 2014 dollars. But the actual 2014-5 “Cost of Attendance” according to the Reed website is about THREE times that sum: $47,500.
If a professor is brilliant and inspiring enough, sure, a lecture can leave a few students in tears. So can a good book. So why not save your money, stay home for 4 years, and just read good books? One reason (aside from the need for credentials) is that learning is a contact sport. Maybe you can get inspired at the back of a 500-student lecture hall. However, you can’t get challenged in the same way you can in a 20-student discussion of primary source materials, led by an experienced professor who also gives feedback on a couple of 5-10 page writing assignments per term. And it isn’t just the size of the classes that matters in that situation, but also the ability and motivation of your classmates.
All these elements are more likely to come together, earlier in your college career, at some schools than at others. Granted, if your university can attract brilliant lecturers, as well as good students motivated enough to pack the halls, that is a very good thing, too. If you can get that, it probably isn’t worth paying double or triple just to get a few more small discussion classes. So yes, usually there are trade-offs … even if, for many good students with family incomes up to 2 or 3 times the national median, paying double or triple isn’t necessarily one of them.
FWIW, my own college experience was similar to mackinaw’s in nearly every respect. Since then, both the undergraduate enrollments and the sticker prices at my alma mater have crept up. So I think it is good for parents and alumni to have an “ideal” in mind to encourage colleges to keep aiming high.
Actually, http://www.reed.edu/financialaid/cost_of_attendance.html lists current tuition + fees + room + board at $59,960; with books, personal, and transportation, the total is $62,110 to $63,910, or around four times your inflation-adjusted cost.
Based on percentage of students receiving financial aid (slightly less than half) and the average amount (about $37,000 in grants), the blended average cost over all students is around $46,000 per year. So the question becomes, how did Reed provide an ostensibly similar education back then at one third or less the student revenue that it gets now?
I think most of the NESCAC schools cover A to F–based on my family’s experience with two of them, as do most of the top 20 lacs. There are some material reasons why they rank so high. I could have mistaken the Williams tour for Cheers–“If you’re a student here, all the profs will know your name.” They also stressed that profs do research and they don’t have anyone but the undergrads to assist them.
As for F, the NESCACS are by and large “full need” in that you won’t be gapped beyond your EFC, but you have to be prepared to pay that EFC. Many people feel pain to do that.
Honors colleges at large state universities tend to meet this ideal for majors that are strong at the universities, with the caveat that students must continue to meet GPA standards.
@ucbalumnus, thought that topic had been covered before?
Various factors, including:
Increased tuition to fund better fin aid (average net tuition prices have not gone up much faster than inflation at many schools).
Competition from other spheres/schools in some fields (if industry starts bidding up the salaries of econ or physics PhDs, colleges have to follow suit just to keep the same quality).
Not quite the same education. More true in the STEM fields, where you won’t use labs from 40 years to provide the same education.
More international students providing the demand to support higher list prices.
In general, with globalization, in a first-world country, the prices of tradeable goods will go down while the prices of non-tradeables will go up.
I don’t buy the small class fetish either–but for different reasons.
I had a very smart neighbor, now in his mid 30s, who went to one of the most highly ranked LACs in the nation. After his arrival, it soon became apparent that he was the most outstanding student in his major. By the beginning of sophomore year, he loathed his college.
Why? His major wasn’t THAT esoteric, but neither was it English or biology. He said that the overwhelming majority of the classes in his major were populated by the same group of students, i.e., the other students in the major. He claimed that by the beginning of sophomore year, he knew with virtual certainty what each would say as soon as (s)he raised a hand. He also knew that when a prof lead the discussion, he would be called on when it was time to close the discussion and make the point—because all of his profs had figured out that he was the #1 student in his field and was the one most likely to make the right point.
He tried hard to persuade his younger sibling not to go to a LAC. He failed. That sibling went to a different top LAC–and hated it too–for somewhat different reasons.
If you go to one of the smaller research universities, you will have smaller classes in your major in upper division courses. However, it is unlikely that you will have the same students in every class. So, poli sci seminars, for example, might be capped at 20 people. There will be more than 20 poli sci majors. So, if you take 4 seminars in your major–one each semester junior and senior year–it’s probable that there will be AT LEAST 40 different people in those classes with you.
And, IMO, having class discussions on similar topics with a somewhat different group of people is more interesting than having class discussions on similar topics with the same group of people for 4-6 semesters.