<p>I would certainly try other schools. Could have just been a bad draw at that school. It happens.</p>
<p>Thanks, everyone. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.</p>
<p>To the OP: Was it an introductory class or was it a small seminar-like setting? If it's the former, you can rest assured that almost every school faces the same problem because most of the students in the class are just there to fulfill an academic requirement. If it's the latter, don't attend the LAC you visited.</p>
<p>You cannot generalize all colleges of Liberal arts and not do what you like just because of one. I recommend you visit more, about 3 more and in other states.</p>
<p>Okay,</p>
<p>I should probably be doing my homework but I just have to say something about this discussion before it dies down.</p>
<p>"I was sure LACs were for me. Then I visited one of the top rated LACs in the country. Pretty campus, terrifically nice students, attentive faculty...but then I sat in on three classes-one art history, one social science and one humanities-and the level of discussion was so disappointing."</p>
<p>Okay, let's get this straight. You went to 3 classes. Now, let me interrupt what I was about to say by mentioning that I am a first-year student at Swarthmore College, which is one of the top-rated LACs in the country, has a pretty campus, terrifically nice students, and attentive faculty. I attended Discovery Weekend last year, and I also sat in on three classes, and I was also somewhat disappointed in the classes I attended. So I have a feeling that this was at Swarthmore, and so I have a lot to say.</p>
<p>"Lots of summarizing, not much analysis or interpretation."</p>
<p>First, let me say this: YOU CANNOT JUDGE THE QUALITY OF THE STUDENT BODY OR OF A PROFESSOR BASED ON ONE CLASS. At Discovery Weekend, I sat in on three classes: linear algebra, political science, and Latin. The linear algebra class was okay—it was lecture. The Latin class I attended seemed pretty much exactly the same as my AP Latin class—but wasn't college academics supposed to be very different from high school? And I almost fell asleep in political science class. But, here I am! </p>
<p>"No one challenging poorly supported statements."</p>
<p>I am going to use my German history class as an example. Now, if I were a visiting student and went to visit a German history class here, I would say similar things. For example, if the professor said something like, "Germany's economy was really bad in the 1920's," or "France wanted Germany to essentially pay back and to help France's economy start up again," I would call those poorly supported statements. But before the professor lectures, the students have read about the topic and have obtained the supporting evidence already. That's mainly why students accepted what the professor said. That's what happens in history classes here, in general. Professors may bring up some points to remind students, but students should already understand what the professor is saying in the readings assigned for that day. </p>
<p>Another misconception is about what discussion-based classes actually are. In my history class, the professor pretty much lectures for a while and then asks some questions along the way. For example, he might start by giving a general overview of the times, and then lead into a question like, "What did Germany's new constitution say?" Then people would answer and he would use that as a point on which to discuss the constitution and then go on from there. He also asks broad questions like "What do you think Germany's major issues were before WWI?" Then we'd have a bit of discussion about that, and we might talk about something interesting we read about in the readings. So, that's one discussion-based class, not lecture-based. Now, that's just one class. That does not generalize for all discussion-based classes. It really depends on how the teacher likes to structure the class. Most of the time, I don't think students lead the discussion—students are active in discussion, but the professor is the teacher and he has to teach and to lead the discussion along. Now, again, not all discussion-based classes are like this. It would not be wise to judge all discussion-based classes based on this one class. Furthermore, it would be very foolish to judge all discussion-based classes based on this one visit. </p>
<p>"I was dismayed that the professors let students get away with this-and its supposed to be one of the most intellectually demanding LACs in the country."</p>
<p>I'm just going to continue talking about Swarthmore, because I can't say anything about any other LAC's. Again, the OP may have misunderstood, not realizing that if a professor makes a statement that isn't justified in class but is clearly talked all about in the readings, then students clearly aren't going to hassle the professor about it. Furthermore, about the idea that some courses are summaries rather than analytical or interpretative—I could imagine a student walking into my history class and thinking that it's all summary because the professor often lectures, but the professor has to (a good professor would) first review what was talked about in the last class, give background info (that may or may not be in the text) and provide insight about the events he talks about. This isn't really summarizing—it's more like giving the student a firm understanding of the subject and more things to think about. There's also a reason why a certain LAC is deemed one of the most intellectually demanding LACs in the country.</p>
<p>"Admittedly, I go to a very academically intense school, so maybe my expectations are just unrealistic. Maybe there were a lot of first years who were still getting used to 'seminar-style' learning. Maybe the fact that these were morning classes (one started at 8:30) means people weren't 'on' yet. They weren't intro classes though and I know for certain that at least one had a significant number of juniors."</p>
<p>My history class is full of juniors, and while most speak up at some point and ask questions, there are some who don't. It doesn't mean that they're bad students or that they're not academically inclined or that they don't like the material. And, for history at least, it would not be a good idea to have the whole class be discussion among students, because the students, quite frankly, don't know enough to be leading discussion. It really takes someone who's been studying the subject for say, thirty years, to do that.</p>
<p>"Should I try again at a different LAC?"
No—I think it's good to explore other schools, but I think it is absolutely stupid to judge the quality of a school based on three one-hour long classes. The way a current student perceives a class probably won't be the same way a prospective student perceives a class. Also, just because one class didn't go the way you thought it would go does not mean that the class was bad, or that the course is like this, or that the professor is like this, or that there was even anything wrong in the first place. It's very possible to have a very knowledgeable professor, skilled at teaching, deliver a very good class to very bright students, and to have a visitor drop by and think there was something wrong with the students, the professor, the department, and the school.</p>
<p>This is so cute. The OP is disappointed because discussions aren't as earth-shatteringly insightful as they could be....</p>
<p>Let me give you the perspective of someone from a large university: at least students were saying <em>something.</em> I've been in 200+ person lectures where the only people talking are the disrespectful ones in the back chatting about their weekend plans while the lecturer futilely poses questions over the mic that he knows no one will have the guts to answer. I've also been in 10-person upper-level seminars that don't function much differently because we're all so used to saying nothing that when an enthusiastic new professor tries to get us to open our mouths, it feels like he's dragging a stubborn ox through a swamp with a piece of floss as a lead.</p>
<p>Don't diss this LAC, or any other LACs, because it wasn't filled with students as brilliant as you had hoped. As other posters have said, every class has its unique climate which changes throughout the semester, and there's always the possibility that you could initiate wonderful conversations once you're enrolled yourself. Remember the alternative: spending your undergraduate years staring at power-point presentations and being nothing more to your professors than another anonymous face who shows up to exams.</p>
<p>Of course, this is my bitter side. I'm also in the honors college here, and there are have been some nice interactive classes full of scarily involved students. But there's no avoiding the ones that aren't.</p>
<p>I keep telling you, rankings shouldn't be used to decide where you spend the next four years of your life. You're likely to find more scintillating discussion in lesser-ranked LACs that are known for their seminar formats. And I say this as the father of two daughters who visited PLENTY of LACs in their quest for the right school. Not to mention how many schools I went to with my older brother forty-years ago, or my own later odyssey to find that elusive "fit". </p>
<p>I remember visiting my brother at Yale on my college tour. He was in his second year at the time and the Vietnam war was at it's zenith. The discussion in a Philosophy class I sat in on that day was comparing Oreos with Hydrox (a plug here for the 100th Anniversary Edition of Hydrox now on sale at a store near you for a limited time). I watched this cerebral discussion of the merits of the Oreo versus the Original Chocolate Sandwich Cookie. Discussion of how much better the Oreo cream filling was and how many preferred the wafer of the Hydrox went on and on. This must have gone on for a half-hour until I was encouraged to offer my opinion on this philosophical debate. I took the cream off an Oreo, put it between two Hydrox wafers, and asked the professor to try it. Debate over. I applied, they wait-listed me. Best thing that ever happened to me.</p>
<p>Keep shopping. Got for fit, not rank.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, remember also that many of the best schools are quite underrepresented on CC. It could be they're busy engaging in interesting discussions.</p>
<p>Proud Dad = Hilarious Story, the rank vs. quality argument is very well depicted here.</p>
<p>Um, I don't quite get the story. So you sat on a class in Yale that discussed about priorities of cookies, you disliked it, so you're glad you didn't get in?</p>
<p>
Um, I don't quite get the story. So you sat on a class in Yale that discussed about priorities of cookies, you disliked it, so you're glad you didn't get in?
You're right; you don't get it. If I must explain, I will. And here I thought I'd actually made a point succinctly and in less than 100 words! </p>
<p>The point was that scintillating discussion doesn't ALWAYS occur at the "top-ranked" schools nor does it occur ONLY at those top-ranked schools.. But being turned down at what I considered my top choices meant I was condemned to lowly schools like WUSTL and UVA——all considered "safeties" in those days, and for me. The result was that at the latter I learned to critically analyze my life and and what others told me was the truth. I also met many of my lifelong friends as well as my wife of so-far almost 30 years. Then we had three wonderful kids who've pulled me back into the discussion of how to choose a school. And, with the re-introduction of the Hydrox cookie for its 100th Anniversary, they understand Dad really **is* always right.* ;)</p>
<p>Just ran into one of my favorite professors from 1974, at the local discount club. We share many of the same interests but see each other only in passing. Still, though, an engaging 15-minute conversation at the local Sam's Club with a college professor from thirty-five years ago who recognized me and initiated the conversatino is validation enough that my college path may have wound around but came out just right. I also sit on a local board of directors for a NFP policy group with another professor from the same school. Life goes on. College is important but there are hundreds of great schools out there. Pick the one that you feel fits you best, not the one your parent's like, or USNews says is "best". Ask for advice but also examine your motives, your goals, your wants, and your needs. In the end things usually work out for the best, but you're still the one responsible for your life, not HYPS.</p>
<p>proud dad,i totally agree with what u just said.but i am so confused now because FA policies and international students policies are also my conserns,so it's not that easy to "go to any school u really like." i mean that's my philosophy ,but it's rather not realistic right now.my parents have great expectations on me...</p>
<p>"You will indeed be stifled in a 400-person seminar--if you don't want that, don't go to a university, such as HYP."</p>
<p>I can not speak for Harvard or Yale, but at Princeton you are given a lot of attention and resources. Although Princeton is a research powerhouse, it is clearly an undergraduate institution. You are taught by world class professors who really love teaching. Also, Princeton has the preceptorial system where large lectures are divided into very small classes to encourage discussion and analysis. Furthermore, most of the classes at Princeton are small anyways. Introductory courses in econ, like in every other university, will be large.</p>
<p>I had a similar experience to yours when I visited an LAC a few years ago, and I think that paradoxically, seminars are often better and more consistent at schools where most classes are lectures. Why? Because (at least at Yale, where I go), people know that seminars are more work than lectures, so the people in any given seminar usually a) actually want to be there, and b) have budgeted enough time to be reasonably engaged. If you personally like small classes and are willing to do a lot of work, you can take advantage of this by taking a lot of seminars. I'm a sophomore and have taken/am taking a total of 13 classes, of which 7-8 were seminars (Language classes sort of count, but not really). What I'm saying, I guess, is that at any school, there are people who really care a lot about learning, and people who were clearly smart enough to get in, but may have other priorities (say, many varsity football players, to use a very stereotypical example, or people who love math and are taking this history class just to fulfill a requirement). Lecture vs. seminar is a good sorting mechanism.</p>
<p>I actually think you should take a closer look at Yale specifically, especially if you're at all interested in the Western Canon. There's a fantastic freshman program called Directed Studies, in which you take three seminars per semester focused on great books in the Western tradition. Discussion is typically conducted, in my humble opinion, at a pretty high level, not because Yalies are smarter, but because the program has a reputation for being a lot of work (mostly deserved), so the people who take it tend to really care about it, actually do the reading (to the extent that it's possible to read, say, all of War and Peace in two weeks), be willing to keep talking about the material over lunch, etc. If you do visit Yale, definitely go to a DS section (not lecture, which is part of the program but not really the heart of it. If you get there on time/early and ask the professor, and it will usually be fine).</p>
<p>If you want a lot of good seminars and you're interested in DS, Yale is a very good deal. Sophomore year is the trickiest because you're at the bottom of the hierarchy as far as getting into the upper-level seminars that most interest you, but I'm in a fantastic seminar right now, and most of my friends who were interested in seminars got into at least one of the ones they wanted. If you're not really into the DS curriculum, you have two years of struggling to get into good seminars instead of one, so the calculation may be different. (There are freshman seminars, and you can do well with them if you bluebook carefully, but not all of them are terrific, and many are hard to get into. Plus, it's one seminar, maybe two, instead of six.) Still, I think it's worth thinking about.</p>
<p>(And while I haven't heard of a seminar that's really a joke in the way that Proud Dad describes, if there are any, it would be very easy to figure that out and avoid them by reading the course evals and/or going to the first day to see how it is, during shopping period. Also, in case it isn't obvious, Yale has changed a ton since 1970.)</p>
<p>I'm not a math person, but simple math shows the probability of your three sessions having great discussions. If for each class, there is a 50% chance of having a great discussion (which is mind-blowingly high), then .5<em>.5</em>.5=1/8 or 12.5%. </p>
<p>Furthermore, at my high school right now, we have some amazingly insightful discussions, but honestly, there may be only 20 days in the school year that this happens. Think about it. The teacher needs to get through the curriculum and even undergraduates (at least I'm postulating) just don't have the interest and experience to produce any truly meaningful insights to add. For example, history. Most of the time, the historical analysis has already been done. Nowadays, these analyses are based on mountains of primary sources and such. How on earth is an undergraduate going to be able to challenge that? The meaningful discussions we've had center either around a topic that we have researched exhaustively or about more "soft" (ie, arguable) topics. While I'm only in high school, I think this argument extends well to undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Why would they talk about cookies in a philosophy seminar? Do they suffocate with surplus of time and tuition money?
Okay maybe the students didn't feel like learning and slipped off the topic. That happens all the time in student-led seminars. But why is the professor leading this discussion? Isn't s/he paid?
Please tell me there is something I'm not getting.</p>
<p>The professor should definitely be either leading or facilitating class discussions, because he/she is the expert. About historical analysis--yes, truly new insight about historical analysis is done by historians, not by undergraduates, but it's perfectly fine for an undergrad to come up with a thesis that he thought of himself. It may have been acknowledged already in the past, but there's nothing wrong with that. Why do undergraduates have to challenge expert historical analyses? That's not the purpose of a history course. But that doesn't mean that you can't have meaningful discussions.</p>
<p>I've heard complaints from my colleagues about professors dominating class discussions. There's always that risk. Meaningful discussion is a responsibility that should be shared by both teacher and student.</p>
<p>I think class discussions are important because students think they understood something while they actually didn't. So it's the role of the professors to inquire students endlessly so that ultimately the students are able to question themselves. I think the terminology is misleading. Academic experts can share their research products and have "discussions." An undergraduate seminar is more like "class inquiries."</p>