Undergraduate Quality

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
21

<p>Maybe we should shift the discussion go back to debating the undergraduate quality of harvard college, which is the point of the OP. </p>

<p>How does one define undergraduate quality? Byerly chimed in with retention rate and preference of applicants (which I don't agree with). Is it happiness? Is it academic and extracurricular opportunities? Is it how the academic atmosphere/component is challenging, rigorous, fostering intellectual development (which Douthat commented on)? Is it the strength/diversity of the peer group. I wonder if it is a mix of all these things. </p>

<p>For a guidance counselor to level a charge that Harvard has a lack of undergraduate focus/quality is probably naive and overly simplistic. Maybe it does have a huge and wonderful graduate school, which is the focus of the university. It can still have a wonderful undergraduate experience.</p>

22

<p>Crimson, Is there a difference between what Pentasa's GC said and the statements of the former Harvard Dean? You chose to label the GC's opinion but said nothing of the H Dean's remarks?</p>

23

<p>Crimsonbulldog, thanks for getting the thread back on track. I would define undergraduate quality as the overall educational experience available to an undergrad, which is a function primarily (though not exclusively) of the available faculty resources, physical resources (particularly in the sciences), extracurricular opportunities, and fellow students. But the individual experience of any particular undergrad is also a function of the degree to which the individual takes advantage of the resources available, which is why it is hard to say that Harvard is the best (or even one of the best) undergrad choices for any particular individual. That question is more an issue of the right fit.</p>

<p>What I appreciated about Harvard as an undergrad was that the available resources are truly amazing and undergrads who are willing to be proactive can find almost anything they might be looking for. When I went knocking, I rarely found closed doors. </p>

<p>That said, Harvard could definitely do a better job of reaching out to students to make sure they’re taking advantage of these resources rather than making the student reach out to find them. The good news is that the current administration is committed to addressing this issue. The pending curricular review includes (in addition to curricular recommendations) a number of recommendations that I find particularly encouraging in this regard: e.g., an expansion of the faculty to permit more small classes; improvements and more faculty involvement in undergraduate academic advising; and synchronization of the undergrad academic calendar with the grad schools for the purpose of facilitating the ability of undergrads to take courses in those schools. Undergrads do take graduate school courses now – as I did as an undergrad – but it will be a lot easier once the academic calendars are aligned. It is true that Harvard has wonderful graduate schools – these also serve to add to the resources available to undergrads.</p>

24

<p>This is the quote you are referring to:</p>

<p>"She said the University's undergraduate focus motivated her move. "I've always been interested in Brown. It is more focused on undergraduate education and less on professional schools than Harvard is. Once I started talking to people, it became clear that Brown was an exciting place to be," she said</p>

<p>This is hardly an indictment on the quality of undergraduate education at harvard. I think you are equating lack of graduate focus with good undergraduate education, which is not necessarily true. In fact you are intrepreting the above statement as harvard having less undergraduate focus than brown, when it can with equal plausibility be interpreted as Brown being less graduate school focused (a separate statement). Also, just because Brown has less of a graduate school and thus "focuses" more proportionally on undergraduates does not make it of better quality. I see no argument here. </p>

<p>I found the graduate schools in college to be a very very valuable resource, especially the medical school and the faculty there. Taking classes with graduate students at the high levels can be very rewarding as well... and humbling. </p>

<p>Just off hand, since you write so cryptically about your experiences, have you ever attended college, or are you a high school student?</p>

25

<p>Crimson, When someone leaves their job after 10 years and then goes on record to state that the departure was the result of a desire to be with a program that has a greater undergraduate focus, that tells me something (major red flag - no?). Brown is not exactly an LAC. It has its own grad programs (albeit not as many or as large).</p>

<p>P.S. I have been asked about my background before. My response has been that I prefer to be judged solely by the merit/content of my messages and not by who or what I purport to be. Besides, as you have seen, there are some here who can get quite personal (so why open that door).</p>

26

<p>Again, there is nothing to suggest a lack of quality in the undergraduate education at harvard in her statement. Proportionally places like Brown are going to focus more as a university on undergraduates because they are constitute a higher fraction of the students. This does not mean that the quality of the education is better, just different. </p>

<p>If you need your hand held while you walk to class, then no, you shouldn't go to Harvard. If you need your professor to wake you up in the morning, make you breakfast, and remind you kindly that your term paper is due next week, then no harvard is not the place for you. If you are intimidated by higher thinkers (i.e. graduate students) then no, you shouldn't go to harvard. But, if you thrive off a large and diverse and brilliant student body and equally brilliant faculty, and are willing to become a mature adult and take some responsibility in your life for getting things done, then yes, Harvard is the place for you.</p>

<p>now, let's let some other opinions in, because we have plastered ours all over this thread.</p>

27

<p>I will address three key starting points for Harvard, if and when it decides to improve its undergraduate focus. But first, Cosar, you totally ignore Summers statements (as reported in the Globe) and the former Dean's remarks. Since they were made recently, they do not support the statements you made above. Next, Crimson, your statement below is rediculous:</p>

<p>"If you need your hand held while you walk to class, then no, you shouldn't go to Harvard. If you need your professor to wake you up in the morning, make you breakfast, and remind you kindly that your term paper is due next week, then no harvard is not the place for you."</p>

<p>How can one have a serious discussion with you guys when you talk like this.
As reported in the Globe Crimson, students at Harvard are simply looking for the right to have more access to their professors. They don't want their hands held.
It is because of the bizarre statements, voiced by you two and Byerly, that I prefer to avoid discussion and launch new threads.</p>

<p>My three initial recommendations:
1. Make Summers understand the value of undergraduate focus and not just pay it lip service.
2. Implement policies that require professors to give time and attention to the
subject specific academic inqueries of their students.
3. Require departments to pursue talented students demonstrating focused academics (and not relying on admissions to identify students who have won prizes for their test taking ability). Harvard's peers do this with enthusiasm. To my knowledge H does not. Students, like everybody else, like those who like them.</p>

<p>Great, while still in my editing period, I can reflect upon Byerly's bizarre comments below (Byerly note: the most informed people in the calssroom are not fellow students but the teachers - that's who students want access to). You three are unbelievable! This is why Harvard's undergraduate situation is doomed to deteriorate further. The sense of self satisfaction is to much to try and deal with here.</p>

28

<p>I share the sentiments just expressed by bulldog,</p>

<p>The kind of people who want the President to invite them up for milk and cookies on Sunday evening, or to have the Dean of Students tuck them in at night, should not enroll at Harvard. There are scores of teeny-tinies where they will be more comfortable and more secure.</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, if they are self-confident, high energy achievers, who find rubbing elbows with similar sorts an exciting - not an intimidating - prospect, then Harvard is the place for them.</p>

<p>All this talk about being "undergraduate-centered" or not , about "undergraduate focus" etc., particularly the drivel spilling out of Alpha's mouth, is a pile of horse manure. Harvard is not Haverford, and - with all due respect to Haverford (for which I have enormous affection) I hope to hell it never will be.</p>

<p>For those who belong at Harvard - and most of those who end up there are smart enough to know that is where they want and need to be - Harvard is close to heaven on earth. Not only the faculty, the facilities, the course offerings, the Cambridge/Boston setting and the extracurricular opportunities, but - most importantly - the challenge and stimulation of the student body itself, are hard to match anywhere.</p>

<p>I would never advise any student not ready and eager to take charge of his or her life - and to seize the opportunities provided without waiting for an invitation - to choose Harvard.</p>

<p>Such students, talented and promising though they may be, are better advised to go elsewhere where they may be more likely to thrive. This is something I have learned in many years of interviewing applicants.</p>

<p>It's all about "fit", as they say. And this is true without expressing one iota of criticism about any other school, whether or not it views itself as a "competitor" of Harvard.</p>

29

<p>Byerly, Cosar, Crimson, et al, you need to read this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/frosh/2000/class/p28profs.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/frosh/2000/class/p28profs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This, in reference to the Boston Globe article above, is what the Harvard students were looking for.</p>

30

<p>I know rationally there’s no point in responding, but I’ll offer a few thoughts nonetheless.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The Boston Globe story that alpha linked does not report any statements by Larry Summers. It reports an anecdote contained in Richard Blow’s book, about an alleged conversation between Summers and an unnamed undergrad at an unnamed time. The Globe article also quotes another newspaper’s description of Blow as less than a low-rent opportunist, and offers its own view that “the name Richard Blow is synonymous with a rarefied form of perfidy.” The Globe has some modicum of credibility, while Blow has none. The claim that Blow’s anecdote constitutes “Summers statements (as reported in the Globe)” is simply false.</p></li>
<li><p>I have to smile at the use of an old Yale Herald “frosh issue” story to prove Yale’s undergraduate superiority. Obviously Yale offers an excellent undergraduate education, and I would never discourage someone from choosing Yale (even over Harvard!) if the student had visited both and decided that Yale was the best fit. But the advice this story offers Yale undergrads about contact with professors is the same advice I’d offer to a Harvard undergrad: “it really is left up to the student to take advantage of the great conversation, learning, and experience that professors have to offer.”</p></li>
<li><p>Crimsonbulldog’s assessment of the story in the Brown student newspaper is sufficiently close to mine that I will just concur rather than offering a separate opinion.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Now, as I did in another alpha-dominated thread, I promise not to respond further. :)</p>

31

<p>I actually have a real question about the future of undergraduate experience at Harvard. As the College is set to expand into Allston and increase in size (am I right when I say they are planning to add 4 new houses, a 33% increase?), how will Harvard maintain undergrad quality. Is there going to be a proportional increase in the FAS faculty? What will that do to the unity of the college, with it split now into three almost separate campuses: one on the river, one in Allston, and one at Radcliffe Quad? I have had friends in Courier and Cabot, and they had told me (sort of like Yale's Science Hill) that they felt removed from Harvard. Will that happen to the kids in Alltson, are they going to feel removed, separated from the heartbeat of cambridge/harvard? Will they have their own library, or will they have to trek half a mile in the freezing cold to get to Lamont/Widener? How much is even known about the Allston expansion?</p>

32

<p>Cosar/Byerly, my posts are meant for the "open minded", not Harvard boosters who are blinded by their insecurity and allegiance to the alma mater. You and Byerly have a way (intentionally I suspect) of scaring off high schoolers with posts, short on merit, and loaded with personal attacks.</p>

<p>P.S. If the Boston Globe article was inaccurate why was there not a retraction? Surely, Harvrd's Public Relationship staff would have requested one. Answer: It did not contain falehoods.</p>

33

<p>I know I just promised not to respond further, but this is strictly an informational response to crimsonbulldog.</p>

<p>While Harvard is still studying what to do in Allston, there is a proposal to build three undergraduate houses along the river on the Allston side. These would be in lieu of the Quad houses (Cabot, Currier and Pforzheimer), which would then be used for graduate student housing. The new houses would be much closer to the existing River houses than are the Quad houses. And yes, under this proposal, there would also be a new library in Allston. Separately, there is a proposal as part of the curricular review to increase the size of the FAS faculty, but this is designed to facilitate more small classes, not to increase the undergraduate population.</p>

<p>If you’re interested in more information, here’s a link to an executive summary report (from last spring) by the task force that is exploring the proposals for undergraduate housing in Allston:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.allston.harvard.edu/Envisioning/tfreports/ug_life_summ.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.allston.harvard.edu/Envisioning/tfreports/ug_life_summ.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

34

<p>I think response #24 sums up pretty well why I no longer take alphacdcd seriously. </p>

<p>Why I take Harvard seriously, among a few other schools (NOT including Brown) for a prospective math major is that it has a world-renowned, carefully developed undergraduate program in mathematics. The general reputation of the school and whether or not there are graduate units on campus is of less importance to me than specific details about specific major programs. It's no accident that most of the math stars in the United States end up applying either to Harvard, to MIT, or to both. Strong programs attract strong students. Strong students keep a strong program strong. Brown may be a fine school for other programs, but it isn't even on the radar screen for young people who want the best possible undergraduate program in mathematics. </p>

<p>As my screen name should make clear, I'm a parent. My oldest son, who is strongly interested in math, is still too young to be applying to college this year or next year. I read these online debates partly just to get practice rolling my eyes. </p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

35

<p>For a candid, former CC review of Princeton and its undergraduate focus (or model) versus its peers, I suggest the following:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeconfidential.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?57277/84670%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeconfidential.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?57277/84670&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

36

<p>oh.. i was just looking over shoulders, but oh man, this thread is ri-di-cul-- -- ous.
it's like talking about whether bjork is in a punk band.</p>

<p>and (more informative one here) i think retention rate and all that do reflect UG's satisfaction (not only academic, not only focus, but overall). and perhaps may i say UG's high satisfaction (it does NOT need to be compared with other colleges) mirror UG quality*.</p>

<ul>
<li>i dont read a book about UG quality or trying to define whatever. YET i think UG quality is just overall kinda thing; social, academic, resources, all that. and as i mentioned before, they may not be compared.</li>
</ul>

<p>Afterall we all know bjork is not in a punk band. But if you think she is a good singer and musican, Good For You. duh -_-</p>

37

<p><a href="http://www.studentsreview.com/MA/HU_c.html#comments%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.studentsreview.com/MA/HU_c.html#comments&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

38

<p>MzLover-There's some ridiculous stuff on that site, like the person who said they were a communications major.</p>

39

<p>MzLover, That is a great site. Thank you for exposing me to it. The Harvard gang may give you a problem however, it does not show kindly on H, but it is very consistent with the comments regularly heard on CC.
I especially like the ability to make comparisons between schools. This is something few guide books give you. The ability to click once and see a comparison of all 8 ivies plus MIT is great.</p>

40

<p>i am in no mean favoring one school over another. (i'm in neither school, have no connection whatsoever, blahblahblah)</p>

<p>statistical speaking(i am selfstudying AP Statistics), volunteered survey/information/statistics are meaningless.</p>