The Idealized College or University

Parent Cafe
21

Beats me. A couple of the outstanding lecturers – for example one of the legends in philosophy – only had a BA degree (e.g., http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/december2012/articles/reediana/levich.html). My freshman Hum instructor also had only a BA but was an amazing scholar in the classics as well as a poet (http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/feb2004/columns/noc/NOC_hanson.html). As folks like that retired, the replacement costs would be higher as the college competed in the PhD market.

But I think the basic answer to your question would require comparing costs at Reed back then with those at other private colleges. Reed’s costs were probably lower even then, but how much lower? But I suspect if you could find costs from 40+ years ago at Amherst, Swat, etc. (other colleges that I considered), and inflated those costs to 2014, you’d see a similar inflation adjustment factor working throughout academia – with COA inflating much more than general inflation. And keep in mind the comparison: for someone like me growing up in L.A., there were many even cheaper alternatives than Reed. Three of my sibs attended UCLA. Two of us went to private colleges (Reed and Caltech). I would have attended UCB if I hadn’t attended Reed. Costs would be probably half of what my family paid at Reed.

I remember that back in that day, Reed’s endowment was only a few million dollars. Then they started to get serious in building it, gradually expanded the college (when I attended total enrollment was about 950; now it’s about 1,400). This implies also a multiplication of administrative and maintenance costs. Back in my day the 100 acre campus had exactly 2 full time people overseeing the grounds. There was 1 dean, 1 assistant dean, and nothing like the proliferation of responsibilities that colleges now have to address to comply with federal and state laws on occupational safety and health, nondiscrimination, disability, human subjects and vertebrate animal research, intellectual integrity, and so forth. This growth of the non-teaching bureaucracy has afflicted academia at large.

I think Reed has maintained its core ethos. Will be heading back for a round-number reunion in a few months.

22

Re #19

Isn’t that more based on size than LAC vs non LAC?

23

Ha. My kids’ idealized college is:

A) In a big city. With a great music/art scene.

B) Has a strong reputation in their chosen field of study. (Music/art)
C) Has suite-style dorms or at least large rooms for freshmen with no triples and minimal sharing of bathrooms.
D) Mom and Dad can afford it.

My oldest is at a smallish college in a big city, never had huge classes but wouldn’t have cared. He had few classes outside his major anyway. My D is going this fall and may be at a much bigger school where she will have some large classes and possibly be taught by TAs, but again this won’t happen in her major so who cares?

One of my best professors in college ( my state U.) was in my Poli Sci 101 class which was huge. He ended up giving me my best recommendation for grad school. I can’t even remember the names of some of my major professors who had classes of 10 people.

24

@ucbalumnus, size is a big differentiator between LAC and non-LAC. There are few (top) LACs that aren’t small. There are “liberal arts universities” like W&M which try to have a LAC ethos but are bigger and have some grad students. There are “public LACs”, many of which are bigger, but most don’t approximate the top private LACs in atmosphere or student body. On the other hand, few research universities are small.

25

Well, let’s see here.

I want a free college with a 6 to 1 student/faculty ratio that offers graduate-level research opportunities, has 5-star restaurant food, 5-star hotel dorm rooms, world-class marble bathrooms with jacuzzis and deluxe showers, is on the beach with warm water, is perpetually sunny and 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and guarantees a job at the company that I want in the position I want at the pay that I want.

How is this idealized and unrealistic?

26

What I find interesting about the idealized college scenario, is not so much the attributes listed, but the psychological component some people put on their desired school - as in, their depression, their problems, their self-esteem, whatever personal issues they carry with them, will magically dissolve once they hit their dream school.

This occurred with the UCSB shooter (although obviously a most extreme case). He was expecting to have a whole new mindset and gain instant popularity once he got into his new environment. When that naturally didn’t happen, he flew off the deep end. The environment, campus, etc will not change psychological components that are core to your being, even minor ones.

I have seen numerous kids up here disappointed after they get to their targeted school, and I think for a lot of them (not all), they were embracing the notion that college would give them a new slate to be everything they socially dreamed of being, and when that didn’t happen, they got depressed.

Setting realistic expectations is vital. No college will be everything.

27

As people have said, @ucbalumnus, you can get all those things except for low cost at top LACs like Swathmore, Reed, Amherst, maybe Williams (course selection might be an issue but doesn’t have nearby neighbors) and some smaller high quality research universities.

Small class size won’t matter for everyone like @jonri. People in Canada do seem to get an education despite most universities being quite large by US standards. On the other hand, they are lecture and exam oriented all the way through (no doubt with some exceptions). My own perception is that lectures are a particularly poor way to educate. My guess is that if you say something in class (even when you preface it with, “This will be on the exam,”) only about 20% of the class will get it. I remember announcing an exam date or something like that in class and writing it on the board during my first year as a professor and being amazed at how many people afterwards asked me when the exam date was. But, those who thrive with lectures/exams are OK. Others don’t. I was concerned that my son, who was truly gifted and severely dyslexic, might or might not get noticed at one of the Ivies and recommended that he instead attend one of the elite LACs. I figured he’d shine if there was opportunity for discussion in class. His professors quickly recognized how bright he was and made significant opportunities for him when he asked, including research funding to work with them or on his own research, @jonri. He loved it. He is now in grad school at undoubtedly the best school in his field and says that he is glad he attended the LAC first.

My ideal university intentionally teaches people how to think critically. My big frustration is that most schools teach by osmosis. They say “read these Shakespeare plays and wrote a few papers” and we hope that you will learn literary analysis, writing, and critical thinking, although we will just discuss Shakespeare plays with you. No time is spent trying to figure out how to teach you critical thinking or writing. (I took a course in college where we read at least one play a week and had to write several papers/exams and I loved the plays, although not all were splendiferous, but I doubt I learned much). Even in math classes, they give you proofs to do and do proofs in lectures but no really teaches you the key to proofs. You figure it out. In one of the best courses I took as an undergraduate, I figured out over time that the trick for a high proportion of the problems and exam questions was to rearrange every situation so that I could apply the Kakutani fixed point theorem. No one ever explained that. Those of us who did well just figured it out by osmosis figured out and figured out how to rearrange our problems to be able to apply the theorem. In general, the profs don’t explain how to use the conceptual tools you have an rearrange problems to match the tools (and I took classes in some of the best math and stats departments in the world). Those of us who figured it out, figured it out, while the others found other things to do in life.

In contrast, I went to a talk by Steve Kosslyn, the Dean of Minerva University, which seems to be a VC backed for profit university. They designed their curriculum by thinking hard on what comprises critical thinking and how you teach it. Then they designed a curriculum to teach critical thinking. The Dean is an ex-Harvard and then Stanford psych prof. I didn’t see research opportunities in his description of what they do, but he was focused in the talk on what they were trying to teach. Generally quite impressive. All classes 20 or less, but they are/can be done fully electronically with video monitoring of each kid and constant feedback. Because of their business model, perhaps costs actually can be lower. But, I like the intentionality. I have no connection to Minerva (in case you were worried), but was very impressed with what they say they are doing. It may take a while to see if what they say they are doing matches what they are doing and if this is actually more effective than osmosis.

28

I’ll be attending New College of Florida in the fall of 2015. I’d say that it satisfies all of those requirements except maybe the online component. I’ve never heard them mention anything about an online class offering; it would seem to me like it would violate their philosophies regarding learning, small class sizes, professors with terminal degrees, etc to have an online-based education.

29

I disagree with not having TA’s. Having TA’s means grad students who are closer in age and bridge the gap between faculty and undergrad. It also means having grad level classes available. Small is not better- lack of variety in courses available as compared to large schools. So many different languages and other disciplines not found at small schools. Everyone will have different ideas of an ideal school- mine won’t fit yours but that doesn’t matter. One size never fits all.

30

The only school that comes to mind is TCNJ

31

This is a school not located in the US, but its awesome and in fact, fits your idealized college to a tee.

Take a look at the Singapore University of Technology and Design.

Small class size, all conducted in classrooms.
Curriculum developed by MIT, taught by top professors coming from Caltech, Stanford etc. No TAs at all.
If you are thinking of taking engineering/ architecture then yes. Wide range of majors.
Unlimited research opportunities on a professor’s project/ your own idea. Funds projects too.
Low cost: Less than S$20k a year for international students.

Only drawback is that its new (just 4 years) and may not have the prestige many top research universities have.

32

Tufts and Dartmouth fulfill all criteria except low cost.

33

Some of the smallest LACs won’t offer things like football games to root at, if students want that. The Ivy League probably comes closest to fulfilling all the criteria listed, but they will only admit about 20,000 students each year, from all over the world. I include Stanford and Duke in that category, too (with stronger sports, because of different recruiting regulations). Even Harvard relies heavily on TAs and adjuncts for many large courses. I attended Barnard, and my husband graduated from Columbia. Many Columbia students back then never overcame their disappointment over rejections from Harvard, but others decided - especially if they had close friends or relatives at Harvard - that Columbia’s undergraduate education was superior. The largest undergraduate course for Barnard-Columbia, at the time, was Biology 1, with about 300 students. A few other lecture classes had over 100, but they were the exception. Most classes were small; some were tiny. We had TAs for lab sections in Science, but that was about it. There was a football team, although it was legendarily dreadful. Not everyone wants to be in NYC. I could never get in, now, furthermore, and the price-tag is stupefying. For students who will not be admitted to the rarefied tier of colleges that meet full need, offer exotic courses, have Greek life for those who seek it, and are located in vibrant cultural settings, the question will be what and where the student is willing to compromise. There are colleges out there that offer a lot of those things, but not all. My firstborn started off in a BFA program in an arts college, and is now at a large public university in the same city. He is very happy to have a Division I basketball team to root for, and to have more academic courses in his curriculum. He remains close with his artistically-inclined friends, but found his conservatory program stultifying. He didn’t think those things mattered when he first looked at colleges. My younger son chose a tiny, public liberal arts college (hint: it’s mentioned above, on this thread), because its location and financial package more than compensated for other shortcomings. Trade-offs are a part of life for almost everyone, and they help us define what really matters to us - often surprising us in the process.

34

Dartmouth is perfect for some students, but others might find New Hampshire’s climate less than ideal, and Hanover is a little remote for students who want a more cosmopolitan community.

35

@Woogzmama, not sure why you don’t include Northwestern, Vandy, ND, and Rice if you include Stanford and Duke. There are schools between the coasts, you know. If you don’t have prestige as a criteria (which the original list did not), you can add more schools like Wake and BC, (TCU, SMU, etc.) For that matter, the original list did not mention football.

Also, Cornell and UPenn don’t strike me as small.

36

@PurpleTitan - I never meantmy list to be comprehensive, and apologize to anyone who thought I did. Football was not on the original list, but many people want a little bit of school spirit and traditional campus life. I never cared much about it, myself, but it’s an important part of the college experience for a lot of students. I also did not suggest that Cornell and Penn are small. If I have somehow offended a critical mass of readers, I will gladly ask to delete my post. My basic point was that a number of colleges will meet all the criteria, and then some, but that they are the most selective for that very reason. Some other criteria, such as climate, social scene, larger community will matter more to some students than others. We see multiple threads where students are applying to both Columbia and Dartmouth, based primarily on their shared prestige, but I also know plenty of students who applied or attended both and would never have considered the other for a nanosecond. A student who wants a college whose football team has bowl prospects might not get the small, intimate classes along with it. Access to major transportation hubs, world-class cultural events, great natural beauty, Advanced Sanskrit, spacious single rooms, a Final Four basketball team, manageable tuition, and a bumper-sticker that parents will sport proudly, are feasible at a handful of schools, but nobody should question which of those should be abandoned in favor of others.

37

My perception of the state of things (after months of lurking on this site) is that for the vast majority of those who 1)have high stat kids, 2) are informed and 3) fall in the middle (let’s say $80k to $150k) to upper middle ($150k to $300k) shelf on the economic ladder, is that this is essentially “the list” minus a few other criteria that are unique to our son or daughter. Then big quest and answer to “everything for nothing” revolves around the big “M” - Merit Money!!! We believe this ideal exists, but of course we want the red carpet to roll out and to have the great benefit of knowing our kids got the ideal without any hit to the family lifestyle, retirement fund, etc.

The big “M” - your state flagship is bending over backwards to provide it, so that becomes a crucial option and perhaps a fall back plan. The very top tier, most selective don’t have to compete for the top stat students. It is all need based, leaving you with a relatively costly alternative to your state flagship. So then we become obsessed with the second tier and winning the big “M” prize somewhere. So yes I think we believe it exists, at least as a prize to be one (hence the obsession).

If I am on the right track with the state of things, then my big question right now is what does that kid look like that wins the prize. What is the most crucial thing we are missing beyond the stats? It seems to me personality and similar attributes beyond just stats, ECs, etc. the things that come through in the essays and interviews, etc., may be the most overlooked and under-discussed topic. The second tier school wants an ambassador for their school, someone who they can put out front.

Sorry if a bit off topic and needs to be the subject of another thread.

I should say too that I have a bit of a contrarian bent and don’t assume I necessarily subscribe to everything above. But what I am saying is that if you weigh what I see discussed most often and most passionately on this site, this is what I see a lot of.

38

@LOUKYDAD‌, depends on who you consider second-tier. If you mean schools like WashU/Vandy/Emory or top publics like UVa/UMich or LACs like Richmond/Kenyon/Macalester (basically, the top-most tier that offers big merit awards), sure, they’re looking for ambassadors, but they’re using merit money to get kids who would otherwise be heading to HYPSM or at least some other Ivy/equivalent (Duke, which is probably the top-most school that offers big merit awards, only loses kids they offer awards to to HYPSM). So sure, personality would help, but you still would need pretty impressive achievements/ECs as well as stats.

If you’re talking about schools like CWRU/Rochester, a personality may not be needed, just stats and some ECs.

39

Time is the major limitation for professors. With only 5 students, it is possible to let the course ebb and flow with the students. That is impossible even when you get to 10 or 15 students.

When it came down to it, the reasons I nixed two schools that accepted me were how much hassle it would be to go from my dorm to classes (land grant school) and how much hassle it would be to travel to the school (5 hours) coupled with not being near a metropolitan area. Where I did go might not have been “better” in other ways, but walking hundreds of feet to your classes or your friend’s dorm but still having the benefits of a university was important for me.

Every college has good and bad professors. Just like every company has good and bad employees. Every students needs to take their college education “by the horns” and drive it themselves - talk to their professors, talk to fellow students in their major and out of it, and realize that the money is being spent for the whole experience. Even at the “worst” or “biggest least personal” colleges, there are some dedicated professionals, and dedicated students, who might have reasons not to take that job at Harvard or spot at Yale.

40

PurpleTitan, yes you pegged perfectly. Wash U, Vandy, Emory are exactly the three schools at the top of a personal list that we talk about. The truth is we do really know first hand much about any of the schools beyond what you can read online. We also talk about two smaller LACs as well. For us, those are Wash & Lee and Centre (would not be on the list of most who are not from KY, but it has the perception for those from KY that it is usually perceived as the best small LAC in the state). Then on the other hand there are the two state flagships, University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville, and their honors programs. About 1000 kids in KY annually are chosen as Governor’s Scholars, which means full tuition as either flagship with minimum GPA and ACT (28). Usually 8 to 10 annually from my son’s public high school. KY resident NMF are full ride at both schools.

So yes, I think it is fair to say at this early stage for us that we have a perception of the first five above as the “ideal” (at least leaving aside the cost). Something like winning a Brown Fellow award at Centre as a very difficult but wonderful achievement to dream about.

My wife and I both know what it is like to go the state flagship. We both graduated from one of the above with very practical degrees. Like a lot of parents I imagine, the dream is to reach beyond and give your own something better, more “ideal” I guess. So yes I find myself very interested in knowing what it is they look for in these types of awards, especially because I have two more behind the first and funds will never be unlimited.