<p>The point thought is Harvard CAN be big and intimidating while many LACs simply arent</p>
<p>jedipsohn asks "is it substantially better academically?". Substantially? Maybe not.</p>
<p>The point though is Harvard CAN be big and intimidating while many LACs simply arent.</p>
<p>Thats certainly one point, but I wouldnt call it <em>the</em> point. I think the point is that different schools offer different environments its not one size fits all (literally or figuratively). My son pretty much ruled out LACs after visiting a few. He wanted a larger school, more resources and a city (most LACs are more isolated). Some of his classmates applied only to LACs. Its very much an individual choice.</p>
<p>For a student who has the personality and inclination to take advantage of it, I do think a school like Harvard (or Yale or Stanford) offers an unparalleled range of resources certainly a wider range than a LAC can offer. And this is not a criticism of LACs its just in the nature of what they are. But that range of resources doesnt really help a student who would deal better in the more nurturing environment that a LAC can provide.</p>
<p>Superior students allow faculty to teach at a higher level. By this I mean they can cover material with greater breadth and depth. Courses in the same subject are not taught the same across the spectrum of college selectivity. When presented with superior students, superior faculty are able to present more difficult concepts more quickly and in a more insightful and facile manner while offering examples and anecdotes from their professional work for clarification and inspiration. The level of classroom dialogue is more sophisticated. Superior faculty impart a superior intellectual discipline and value system to students through their lectures, discussions, and assignments. Superior faculty have a deeper, clearer view of their subject to share with students. They have a better integrated understanding of the subject in a broader context. They serve as better role models and mentors for students aspiring to professional careers in their disciplines. They provide a model for success.</p>
<p>By the way, I think Rice and Emory are outstanding universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Superior students allow faculty to teach at a higher level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, and this may account for the difference between Harvard and a CC or non-flagship public (Not that there is a problem with those schools; they are different though).</p>
<p>I honestly do not think the students are superior at Harvard to the ones at Rice or Emory, since I go to Rice and know several people at H and E.</p>
<p>Collegehelp, I don't agree with what you said at all. Jenskate fixed it a little, but it is ridiculous to say that the level of students at Harvard et al is that much greater than the level at Rice, Davidson, Colgate etc. Sure, there may be some higher SAT scores, but ALL these schools are populated with bright kids who will benefit from whatever the faculty is willing to provide. I do agree that the bottom tier of students at even the better large state universities is a far cry from the more selective schools we are considering here.</p>
<p>Mom...
I think you misunderstood my previous post, and after reading it again, maybe I was unclear. I was responding to Jedipsohn's earlier question
"what's so great about having the top professors in the world". It might have sounded like I was saying that Harvard/Stanford have professors like that and Rice/Emory do not...but I was trying to simply articulate what makes a great professor great. My last line was that Rice and Emory are outstanding, and by that I meant that they also have outstanding faculty. In fact, I don't think Harvard/Stanford are "so much" better than Rice/Emory at all. I think they are somewhat better in certain aspects. And, I think the reverse can be true also...case in point: Rice engineering better than Harvard engineering. I don't think the OP was saying that Harvard/Stanford really were "so much" better but was actually questioning why some people might think so. That's how I read it, at least.</p>
<p>collegehelp:</p>
<p>you should write the PR for the big two campuses, but you'll have to tone down the SAT words for us mere mortals to comprehend. </p>
<p>btw: do you really believe that Chem 1 at Harvard is that much 'broader' and 'deeper' than Chem 1 at Emory or Rice, or any top public (Berkeley, Mich, UVa, UNC)? How about Physics (the class taught at H, not MIT)? More importantly, why would they be so? (Granted, with nearly everyone getting a B+ or better, it is easy to go off on tangents in a discussion, bcos being on point has little grade value.)</p>
<p>jenskate: your first sentence implies a 'But', as in But, the flagship publics.....however, that But, just deflates the argument of this post. As has been pointed out numerous times before, any of those top public have numerically more kids with top grades and test scores than do H and S, if only on sheer numbers alone. As mwc points out, the bottom quartile is lower at those schools, however.</p>
<p>also, why would u say rice or emory. emory is an okay school, rice is so much better. they might be about the same on US news, emory has a huge endowment. i think a better question would be what makes harvard better than chicago/rice?</p>
<p>HYPS has good alumni connections too. </p>
<p>i suspect the quality of education that you receive at any of the schools mentioned are about the same. im not sure if im right, but from what i understand, you receive the best education from a LAC because the professors are teachers first, not researchers first (btw, researchers usually aren't trained to teach).</p>
<p>bluebayou
When I said that superior professors could teach superior students in a deeper broader way (a Pile higher Deeper way???... PhD...jk) I was making a general statement. I do not specifically know about chem I at Harvard and Rice. But, I do know of specific examples: where calc I and II at an Ivy cover about the same material as calc I, II, and III at a second tier school. where intro bio at an Ivy covers more topics than at a second tier school. I hope I don't sound disrespectful of second-tier schools. I am only saying that good colleges do what works best with the students they have. The differences within the classroom between Rice/Emory and Harvard/Stanford may not be that great. But between Harvard/Stanford and a community college the difference might be striking.</p>
<p>It works both ways. To paraphrase a famous psychologist:
How good a college do the students permit?
and the other side...
How good a student does the college create?</p>
<p>Your remark about my big words made me laugh at myself. It only takes two beers to make me talk normally. BTW, a lot of the mere mortals on this discussion board seem pretty smart.</p>
<p>chocoholic</p>
<p>UChicago is a strong school with excellent, accessible profs and intense students. My S got in EA and has had quite a few emails going back and forth with some profs he met with when he visited last winter. They have been very helpful, giving him advice on various issues on choosing a school.</p>
<p>"That gets to the crux of my question, i guess: what's so great about having the top professors in the world. ...Does it really make your undergrad experience that much better? "
There's a difference between an excellent teacher and a person who's at the top of his/her field. Just because someone literally "wrote the book" or won the prize or is the agreed foremost expert doesn't mean that s/he can or will teach effectively. An example, several years ago I took an introductory SCUBA training course from one of the world's most respected marine biologists. Well, I learned a lot about fish but not much about SCUBA. I said at the time that it was like learning to paint with Picasso.</p>
<p>From what I know about UChicago, Emory and Rice, they ALL have excellent, committed, accessible TEACHERS (who happen to be professors and well respected in their fields). This is what you want. At HYP you may rub shoulders with the Nobel prize winners, but they may not be reading your paper or talking to you over a cup of coffee. At AWS (and I believe the three schools you mention here) the teachers are there to teach YOU, not to further their own careers. This is not to say that there aren't wonderful teachers at HYP. There certainly are. They just may not be the big name superstars.</p>
<p>In short, choose the college by the style and environment that fits you, personally.</p>
<p>Why do people tend to assume that "big name superstar" professors can't also be wonderful teachers? Many are, particularly if you share a passion for their specialty. Of course, some aren't - but that's true of professors generally, big name or not.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, if your looking for close contact with superb instructors or with teachers generally, concentrate on schools with a strong focus on undergraduate students. Don't make the mistake of lumping the Ivies together in that regard. They are quite different in their approach to undergraduate education. There are many threads going on right now discussing the topic.</p>