<p>The question is not whether to offer online learning but how best to do it. President Sullivan had one view, based on her experiences at multiple educational institutions, while Rector Dragas had another view, based on op-ed pieces and press releases.</p>
<p>I really don’t get what the xiggi/UBChemE ****ing contest is about.</p>
<p>First, I don’t know what happens at UVa, but at every university with which I have reasonably familiarity famous professors teach undergraduates. Sometimes it’s only a seminar, sometimes it’s a large lecture course (which of course some people will deride, too). When I was in college, my Bio for Poets class was taught by a Nobelist (and taught well, by the way).</p>
<p>Second, standing or sitting in a classroom and teaching is hardly the only way a famous professor contributes to the education of undergraduates. (As xiggi grouses, it’s not such a big deal if 20 undergraduates get in a room with them every year.) They attract the best graduate students, who in turn TA undergraduate classes. They have labs where they pursue the research that makes them famous, in which many undergraduates get involved. They have office hours; you can go talk to them. (Again, when I was in college I made an appointment with a professor who hadn’t taught undergraduates in 16 years, although he later started again. I talked to him about my interests and what I had studied, and he suggested a reading program to fill in gaps in my education. It was great.) They give talks; they come to other people’s talks and ask questions. Their presence attracts other top scholars to visit for a single lecture or a semester.</p>
<p>A university isn’t first grade. The point isn’t that you sit in class and someone teaches you to read, add, and subtract, and that is the most important person in your life after your parents. A university is a community of scholars, and if you have really strong scholars in the community the baby scholars (undergraduate students) can get plenty of benefit from that.</p>
<p>It looks like Tuesday is d-day for Dr. Sullivan. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. To parents from OOS applicants; Does this whole episode change your opinion of UVA and would you still encourage your child to attend there?</p>
<p>I’ve been asking UVa alums about the situation and been surprised by the deep reaction. It’s on OOS ds’s long list. This wouldn’t keep ds from applying, but we’ll see how this shakes out and would play a role in the decision to actually go.</p>
<p>Don’t mean to hijack, but feel the need to interject.</p>
<p>Dr. Adam Riess, who won the Nobel alongside Dr. Perlmutter this past fall, does indeed teach a course (#118 with no pre-reqs) for non-physics majors every spring titled “Stars and the Universe: Cosmic Evolution” at JHU. Prior to this year, the course was capped at 125 students (understand there are only 20-30 physics majors/year at JHU) but this year, they upped it to 340 students. Some physics majors take it for fun and Dr. Riess receives excellent reviews from students.</p>
<p>Oh, that is a long-running debate that has taken comical proportions over time. UCB inserts the example of Smoot in almost all discussions about the lack of teaching presence of top researchers, and in particular the ones who spent about every minute of their precious time at the Berkeley National Labs. Perlmutter just gave UCB the opportunity to avoid having one pony trick. However, it makes no difference, if there were six more Nobel winners … in terms of UG teaching. </p>
<p>While I do NOT debate that attracting top scientists (and giving them teaching sinecures) is part of higher education and plays a role in gaining or maintaining a higher status, I always question how much it affects the undergraduate student positively. And not only for allowing a bit of bragging about it. </p>
<p>All in all, it is pretty simple. Schools that follow a model a la Cal cannot really pretend that their focus is on undergraduate education. Since the “bread and butter” of THIS forum is on undergraduate education (with a small graduate school aftertought of a forum) the supporters of the schools who are mostly recognized for the graduate programs feel slighted, and compelled to seize every opportunity to dispel the (correct) claims that their school are somewhat overrated at the UG level. </p>
<p>In the meantime, I maintain that one could easily spend four (or six) years at a large research university and need binoculars to recognize the academic divas employed by the school. In itself, that might not be that big of a deal, but then some might have picked that school for exactly having such opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is the theory peddled in Higher Academia 101. The reality might be quite different. While their qualifications and preparation vary extensively among schools, as there are drastic differences between a pre-dissertation PhD student and a graduate student who just landed from a foreign land, they are still TAs! </p>
<p>In addition, in almost all discussion, the examples are culled from the hard sciences where lab work is omnipresent. How much REAL research do UG students at large universities do in the liberal arts?</p>
<p>Condi Rice spoke at my company a couple of weeks ago. She teaches a MBA level class in the fall about international affairs and how they affect businesses. In the spring she teaches a Poly Sci course-says that she requires a paper a week from her students. And when they complain, she tells them she has to read 25 papers a week so don’t complain.</p>