<p>We hear this refrain: If you want better academics go to HYPS, etc.<br>
Is that really the truth? Do they teach better at these more selective schools? Are the assignments tougher, students have to work much harder than compared to, say, schools in the 30 - 100 rank range (USNWR)? Do the kids in selective schools know more of the subject mateer when they graduate? I am talking strictly of academics, not what one gains by being surrounded by bright peers.
If you were to compare Harvard at 45K/year with University of Alabama at nearly zero cost for 4 years, which do you think is better? </p>
<p>Note: From Univerity of Alabama website:
All National Merit and Achievement Finalists, and National Hispanic Scholars with a 32 or higher ACT score (or equivalent SAT score) will receive:
Value of tuition in-state or out of state for 4 years
4 years of on-campus housing
$1,000 per year University National Merit/Achievement Scholarship for 4 years
One time allowance of $2,000 for use in summer research or international study
Laptop computer</p>
<p>No one knows, really. If I were you, though, I wouldn't discount the effect of being surrounded by extraordinarily bright and successful peers. Take extraordinary faculty and put them in small classrooms with extraordinary students and good things tend to happen (on average).</p>
<p>I went to one of the Ivy League schools (not HY or P, though). My son goes to a flagship state university.</p>
<p>I have noticed that his courses seem much more textbook-based than my courses were. In many of his courses, the textbook is the only reading material assigned. In my courses, we read a variety of different materials, including scholarly papers or scientific journal articles, as well as the textbook (if there even was a textbook). Also, my son reports that in most of his courses, the lectures and the textbook duplicate each other. In my courses, the lectures and the readings presented different but complementary material, and we were tested on information derived from both sources.</p>
<p>"No one knows, really. If I were you, though, I wouldn't discount the effect of being surrounded by extraordinarily bright and successful peers. Take extraordinary faculty and put them in small classrooms with extraordinary students and good things tend to happen (on average)."</p>
<p>I agree with this, i think "better academics" for the most part, are VERY much influenced by WHO you are going to school with, i went from a not-so-great academically (comparatively) state school to a top 15 and, as far as i can tell, the "academics" in the strictest sense of the word, are <em>pretty</em> comparable, or only slightly better, but being in class and surrounded by smarter people makes all the difference, as well as the RESOURCES provided by "better" schools due to higher endowment, tuition, etc.</p>
<p>my ivy league graduate degree was a joke compared to my undergrad degree from a small lesser known school (as in the grad curriculum was a complete waste of my time and money and was ridiculously easy). it all depends on what you make of it.
a bright and motivated student can do well anywhere</p>
<p>I went to a top school last year and am at a not so hot school this year. I would say that the students make a BIG difference, becuase faculty have to teach to the students. My courses this year are very dumbed down so that professors can pass a majority of the students. This wasn't so last year. </p>
<p>I have three good friends who took advantage of Bama's offer. They are all struggling a bit, culturally at least. They are from a super liberal town in Northern CA. One of them is bisexual, and lets just say students at Bama are not too welcoming of this. However, they are sticking it out and just started their sophmore year. The school is "ridiculously easy" but they are getting good opportunities becuase of it. They are top of their class and the professors are ecstatic that they are actually semi interested in learning.</p>
<p>I went to a school ranked around 55th this year on US news, and the classes were just text books really. The professor would yap and repeat everything that was said. Heck, I didn't go to class half the time!!</p>
<p>At my current Ivy League school, the textbook is used only as a supplement. The rest is based on scholarly articles or case studies. The professor assumes we have read the text book and understood everything, so they never bother repeating it. Rather, we have alot of class discussion or debates. This is alot more fun and I believe it's much more conducive to learning. </p>
<p>But, I'd have to say the greatest difference between the two schools are the student bodies. You'd be amazed at how much you really learn when NOT in the classroom. Having smart people in the classroom causes teachers to "raise the bar" a bit and makes the academics more challening, though it's also incredible how much you can learn just having a random conversation with a friend.</p>
<p>In all fairness, I must admit that gomestar and I do not count as two separate instances of anything. He attends the same university now that I attended way back when.</p>
<p>I just started graduate school last week, and I've noticed that I seem to have a firmer grasp of the material than other students in my program who did not attend top schools. I'm also much more comfortable reading and analyzing scholarly articles. I participate more in our small discussion-based course, which seems to be because I'm less intimidated by the professor's presence in the small-group setting.</p>
<p>I don't know what the academics were like at the schools other students in my program attended, but I was much better-prepared for graduate school by my undergraduate education.</p>
<p>I started at a juco and the finished my undergrad at a run of mill state university. I then went to a top ranked grad program at a major research university. I found the atmosphere to be a bit more competative but the pure academics to be lesser. I worked harder at the juco than I did in the grad program.</p>
<p>There were a lot of students in my grad classes that came from top flight schools that did no better than I did. All they basically did was mirror the liturature and quote researchers in their papers. Most of them didn't seem capable of drawing conclusions and making an argument within their papers.</p>
<p>So, based on responses above, better academics appears to refer to a stimulating learning atmosphere due to the presence of bright kids.<br>
As far as the faculty are concerned, one can check out their degrees, almost all Universities have PhD holders as Professors.
Marian mentioned textbook being emphasized at lower ranked schools. Using external reference materials can certainly be great for liberal arts (non-science) majors. But for science or math majors, if one learns whatever is in textbook, that will be a fantastic education, I think. I cannot imagine that undergraduate level students will need to read research papers.<br>
Am I right in thinking that for science/math majors, the "academics" at top but expensive schools are not significantly better than bama-type schools?<br>
Will appreciate any further counter arguments. (My dad told me that he'd pay the tuition at a top school (up to 180K) or hand me that much cash after 4 years of free education which I can get in some schools because of my NMSF status. I won't get any need-based aid anywhere.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I cannot imagine that undergraduate level students will need to read research papers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not only should you be reading them, you should also be writing them. Many undergraduates are co-authors of published research.</p>
<p>What would your dad say if you could get partial merit aid? Would he give you partial credit? There are some very fine universities out there that often offer merit aid to desired applicants but aren't likely to give you as much as you would get at Alabama. Case Western and Washington University in St. Louis are two examples. There's a whole thread on this topic near the top of the Parents' forum (it's a sticky thread, so it stays there).</p>
But for science or math majors, if one learns whatever is in textbook, that will be a fantastic education, I think.
[/quote]
I completely disagree with this. What you need to learn as a science/engineering undergrad isn't fact-based -- you need to learn how to think about problems in science and what tools you need to solve them. Science and engineering knowledge moves at a very fast pace, and textbooks are outdated as soon as they're published.</p>
<p>"I cannot imagine that undergraduate level students will need to read research papers"</p>
<p>your screen-name suggests that you are not yet in college. When you get there, you will see how important and helpful they really can be. Also, like Marian said, some undergrads should be writing them as well. </p>
<p>"Many undergraduates are co-authors of published research."</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Not only should you be reading them, you should also be writing them. Many undergraduates are co-authors of published research.
[/Quote]
Fair enough.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
What would your dad say if you could get partial merit aid? Would he give you partial credit? There are some very fine universities...
[/Quote]
This thought has crossed our minds. Yes, I will get (180K - the cost). I am thinking along the lines you suggested.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Science and engineering knowledge moves at a very fast pace, and textbooks are outdated as soon as they're published.
[/Quote]
Is this really true? If it is, I'd think it is very hard for practicing scientists and engineers to keep up. Undergrad textbooks becoming obsolete so fast means that there is no point in studying them, so it makes sense to study from research papers. Well, no wonder college is not going to be easy!</p>
<p>There's a difference between DOING science and learning the basic building blocks. In Physics at least, I found just learning the foundation material to be challenging enough. For me.</p>
<p>It's great to get more training at DOING science, but not every undergraduate, even at schools reputed to be "good" get this opportunity in a meaningful way. There are a few schools, notably MIT and Cal Tech, which are known for providing extensive undergraduate research opportunities. I believe many if not most other big universities reserve these opportunities for graduate students, or a few favored undergrads who somebody happens to take a shine to. Meaning most kids don't get that. They have to wait to grad school to really learn to become scientists, to a large extent. Their undergrad experience will look like mine, and for me if I could have mastered the textbook material I would have been a happy guy.</p>
<p>I'm not saying undergrad research isn't great, I'm just saying that for better or worse it's not available to everyone in programs labeled good. Whether these programs are actually good- well maybe not. But I suppose that if one isn't doing so much undergrad research then perhaps they are getting a broader foundation in overall survey areas in one's general field instead. Breadth instead of depth. Then they get the research experience anyway, eventually, in grad school. For instance, I read that in the bio programs at one of these research first programs they didn't even study Botany. Or something like that. Sort of like running before you learn to walk?</p>
<p>But there's no denying if your goal is to do science then serious exposure in undergrad is great.</p>
<p>Not everyone gets to this level though. Even from schools considered "good" the majority of students do not go on to "do" science ultimately.</p>
<p>"I'd think it is very hard for practicing scientists and engineers to keep up"</p>
<p>well, they do update the books, hence why you see texts with like "5th edition" or "12th edition" on them. They update books in light of new findings and so forth.</p>
<p>It is hard for practicing scientists and engineers to keep up, but generally professional scientists study one small aspect of one process for many years, so they become experts in a particular sub-sub-sub-field.</p>
<p>The scientists I know keep a few textbooks only for very basic reference, but learn most new material through reading the scientific literature.</p>
<p>To add to what monydad said above, it's important to look for a school with a strong undergraduate research program if you're interested in pursuing graduate studies in science or engineering -- meaningful undergraduate research is basically a requirement for graduate school admissions today.</p>
<p>From my POV,m "better academics" (at least in science and engineering) normally means that:</p>
<p>1) You take more advanced classes than in other schools (i.e., the material is
generally presented at greater depth). That is true both for
required freshman/sophomore courses and upperclass electives. In the case of electives, you often have to opportunity to study new, "emerging trends" material that is not usually offered elsewhere at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>2) Assignments and exams are more challenging/difficult than elsewhere.</p>
<p>3) Most of your professors will be leading research experts in the field and their classes will benefit from their research experience and broader view of the subject (beyond plain textbook material). There are also many undergraduate research opportunities if you are interested . </p>
<p>On the negative side though, not all professors will necessarily be good "teachers". What I mean is that, being a top research scientist does not necessarily imply one will be a good teacher, although, contrary to popular opinion, I personally think that there is a very high (positive) correlation between the two.</p>
<p>I suppose that for someone who is motivated, it is not too difficult to find ways to learn well in any reasonable University. He or she should seek out and make use of whatever is available.<br>
However, it seems that in the top schools, it is easy to find people of excellence to interact with and to find interesting courses to take up. Tougher assignments and exams may also motivate smart but lazy students. I was reading the autobiography of Nobel prize winner, economist Vernon Smith. He talked about his undergraduate days, "Caltech was a meat grinder like I could never have imagined. I studied night, day, weekends and survived hundreds of problems, but what a joy to take freshman chemistry from Linus Pauling, hear physics lectures by J. Robert Oppenheimer on his frequent visits to Caltech, attend a visiting lecture by Bertrand Russell, and regularly see von Karman, Anderson, Zwicky, Tolman, Millikan and other legendary figures of that time, on campus."</p>