What Undergrad-Focused Insitutions Have the Absolute BEST Teaching & Advising?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>After thorough research, I have just came to the revolutionary conclusion that research-focused, "prestige" universities basically supply extremely low-quality undergraduate "education"- verging on the pathetic. Those are the types of places that I'm currently applying to as we speak. </p>

<p>I've spoken with and read student reviews from so many people who have attended places like Yale, Columbia and Stanford and complained of the utter lack of attention and resources for the undergrads. Many of them seem to feel like they wasted their time.</p>

<p>At the same time, I'm not sure that I could possibly conceive of transferring from my CC to a LAC that is the size of my old high school. </p>

<p>But maybe the trade-off is worth it? Which schools actually care about their students and provide them with bulletproof educations as well as shiny degrees?</p>

2

<p>hellooooooo "your mileage may vary" question</p>

<p>It depends on what you put into it. I am at a major research university with ~10,000 undergraduates, and another 10,000 grad students on top of that. Nevertheless I am on a first-name basis with my advisors and professors, and have shared dinners and even drinks (on the school's dime).</p>

<p>But I'm sure for every one of me there is someone who feels ignored, etc. It is what you make of it.</p>

3

<p>Ymmv ....;)</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
extremely low-quality undergraduate "education"- verging on the pathetic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really, no. It may seem like that comparatively, but on an absolute scale, the undergrad education at top schools is excellent. What do you think the undergrad-focused institutions are offering that the research-based ones aren't? Small class sizes? Opportunities? Advising? Well guess what -- top schools, even if they are research-based, offer all those and more. The fundamental difference is just environment, and one is neither inherently superior or inherently inferior. It depends on your tastes and preferences.</p>

5

<p>In 1995, USNWR did a survey among academics for the quality of teaching on college campuses that was similar to the reputation survey known as Peer Assessment. The teaching survey results were perhaps a shock to many and excluded many of the historical powers, including MIT, U Penn, Columbia, Cornell, J Hopkins, UC Berkeley, etc. For whatever reason, USNWR did not repeat this survey, but continue with their Peer Assessment survey which strongly supports the education status quo. </p>

<p>Following are the results of the 1995 teaching survey which today may or may not be a good indicator of the quality of classroom teaching (notice that both Stanford and Yale made this list, but Columbia did not). Overall, there was a strong level of agreement with your baseline thought that the major research universities probably aren’t the best places for undergraduate teaching. </p>

<pre><code>NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES
</code></pre>

<p>1 Dartmouth
2 Brown
3 W&M
4 Rice
5 Princeton
6 Stanford
7 Duke
8 Miami U (OH)
9 Notre Dame
10 Yale
11 U Virginia
12 U Chicago
13 Emory
13 UC Santa Cruz
15 Vanderbilt
16 Boston College
17 Harvard
18 Northwestern
19 Caltech
20 Wake Forest
20 U North Carolina
22 BYU
22 Wash U
24 Georgetown
24 Tufts</p>

<p>With regard to advising, one of the ways to think about this is the level of resources that a college dedicates to students. Two broad measurements of this are USNWR’s Faculty Resource Rank and the Financial Resources Rank. IMO, these two measures are excellent clues for the nature of the undergraduate experience. Here are the Top 20 national universities in those ranks:</p>

<p>Faculty Resources rank , School (USN Rank)</p>

<p>1 , U Penn (5)
2 , Caltech (5)
3 , Princeton (1)
3 , Harvard (2)
3 , Duke (8)
6 , U Chicago (9)
7 , Wash U (12)
7 , Northwestern (14)
9 , Yale (3)
10 , Columbia (9)
10 , Emory (17)
10 , Vanderbilt (19)
13 , Stanford (4)
14 , Cornell (12)
15 , Dartmouth (11)
15 , Rice (17)
17 , Carnegie Mellon (22)
18 , Brown (14)
19 , Lehigh (31)
20 , MIT (7)</p>

<p>Financial Resources Rank , School (USN Rank)</p>

<p>1 , Caltech (5)
2 , Yale (3)
3 , Johns Hopkins (14)
4 , MIT (7)
4 , Wash U (12)
6 , Wake Forest (30)
7 , U Chicago (9)
8 , Harvard (2)
8 , U Penn (5)
10 , Stanford (4)
11 , Dartmouth (11)
12 , Princeton (1)
12 , Northwestern (14)
14 , Duke (8)
15 , Vanderbilt (19)
16 , Columbia (9)
17 , Cornell (12)
17 , Emory (17)
19 , U Rochester (35)
20 , Carnegie Mellon (22)</p>

6

<p>Maybe I'm way off base, but your post makes it seem to me that you are beginning to doubt that you are going to get into the elite schools to which you have applied and are therefore engaging in some self-protection by trashing them before you get the thin envelopes.</p>

<p>I would bet a LOT of $ than I know far more students/recent grads at Yale and Columbia than you do. (I only know a few from Stanford.) Though many have various complaints, I've never heard ONE say that the quality of the education they got is "pathetic." Indeed, I don't know a single one who didn't get to know at least two profs pretty well. I think you'd have to make a pretty concerted effort to avoid doing so. The idea that students at Columbia and Yale complain about "the utter lack of attention and resources for the undergrads" is absurd.</p>

<p>If you want to go to a LAC, go to a LAC. Folks there have complaints too. They may be different complaints, but there are complaints. You can find some unhappy students anywhere. I'll be there are even some at the CC you attend.</p>

<p>If you aren't sure what you want, apply to schools of different types and visit once you have acceptances in hand.</p>

7

<p>To follow up Hawkette's post - </p>

<p>The rest of the rankings list specifically for Liberal Arts Colleges demonstrating a "strong commitment to undergraduate teaching":</p>

<p>TOP NATIONAL LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES </p>

<ol>
<li>Carleton College (Minn.) </li>
<li>Swarthmore College (Pa.) </li>
<li>Williams College (Mass.) </li>
<li>Grinnell College (Iowa) </li>
<li>Amherst College (Mass.) </li>
<li>Earlham College (Ind.) </li>
<li>Haverford College (Pa.) </li>
<li>St. John's College (Md.) </li>
<li>Colorado College</li>
<li>Davidson College (N.C.)</li>
<li>Oberlin College (Ohio)</li>
<li>Pomona College (Calif.)</li>
<li>Wellesley College (Mass.)</li>
<li>Bowdoin College (Maine)</li>
<li>St. Olaf College (Minn.)</li>
<li>Bryn Mawr College (Pa.)</li>
<li>Macalester College (Minn.)</li>
<li>Bates College (Maine)</li>
<li>Middlebury College (Vt.)</li>
<li>Reed College (Ore.)</li>
<li>Kenyon College (Ohio)</li>
<li>Spelman College (Ga.)</li>
<li>Smith College (Mass.)</li>
<li>University of the South (Tenn.)</li>
<li>Centre College (Ky.)</li>
</ol>

8

<p>I'd imagine that the great books focus at St. Johns would make them one of the best.</p>

9

<p>I'm hardly attempting to insulate myself against rejection. I was waitlisted as a Stanford transfer last year after 2 semesters at my school, so while I don't doubt that several of these schools will not offer me admission, I'm guessing that some will. </p>

<p>As far as my original post is concerned, I am guilty of overstating the matter. 'Pathetic' was indeed a bit too colorful of an adjective. I was merely trying to be emphatic in describing the impersonal and distant nature of undergraduate education at schools that are focused on their graduate programs. </p>

<p>Additionally, I can agree from my personal experience in high school that 'your mileage will vary'... I went to a public HS that is consistently ranked in the top 30 or 40 schools in the nation, and I enjoyed a grand total of TWO beneficial classes during my years there. The reputation was all fluff, and plenty of kids who didn't know any better stated that it was "so great". But I was lucky enough to know better, having attended a fantastic private middle school with genius faculty who cared about their students as friends and human beings. The small classes and unorthodox teaching styles there produced great results. I'm 24, and the best classes that I've ever had were in the SEVENTH grade. There's something unbelievably sad about that...</p>

<p>And yes, I'm aware that research U's "advise" their undergrads, and that one can find the occasional professor who cares about teaching just about anywhere.</p>

<p>The bottom line here is that I'm a very discerning person, and plenty of individuals who are as smart or smarter than I am have explained that they witnessed huge deficiencies in the undergraduate educations that they received at some of the "best" schools in the world. For all of the trouble that is required to get in, and for all of the money that is required to stay in, you had better be getting a valuable return. I don't want to go somewhere that requires me to stalk professors and hunt down advisers for a little attention.* I've been seeking to determine whether there are consistent patterns in undergraduate education at the top-tier institutions of higher learning, because however independent and motivated I may be, I understand that for me personally, environment has tended to play a huge role in my successes and failures. </p>

<ul>
<li>(case in point: I spoke with a recent Stanford alum who was a part of the "legendary" econ department there, and he said that despite the stated 7:1 student-to-faculty ratio, he rarely had a class smaller than 50).</li>
</ul>

10

<p>My D attends an Ivy, and the only 'stalking' she's had to do is to go to her professors' office hours (including a world-renowned historian), or e-mail her advisor to arrange a time to get together. Time with faculty has not been a problem for her at all, and she says that nearly all her profs have been excellent teachers.</p>

<p>That said, class size will be an issue at a big research university, depending on your major: Econ classes, for example, are bound to be large. On the flip side, D has had a couple of seminars (Classics, English) with 8 or 9 people in them, and many classes under 50.</p>

<p>And you're right that environment is very important, but that also includes your fellow students, the opportunities for other activities on campus, etc. Don't neglect the 'feel' of the place when making a decision.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
With regard to advising, one of the ways to think about this is the level of resources that a college dedicates to students. Two broad measurements of this are USNWR’s Faculty Resource Rank and the Financial Resources Rank. IMO, these two measures are excellent clues for the nature of the undergraduate experience. Here are the Top 20 national universities in those ranks

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is where things can get misleading. In my opinion, financial and faculty resource rankings definitely is not a good indicator of the quality of the academic advising programs available. I attend one of the schools in the top 3 of the faculty resources rank, and I can say without a doubt that their academic advisers really only hold that position nominally (most of them are professors and other faculty who are obligated to take it up), and the school does not offer a great deal to students in terms of academic guidance. There are many universities and colleges, most of them small institutions, but some not, that offer much more involved advising programs. It really depends upon how many certified academic advisers are hired by the school, and how the school makes them available to students. Clearly some schools are more committed to that area than others.</p>

12

<p>tokyo,
Thanks for the distinctions which I would agree with. The USNWR rankings are really a broad brush and students should investigate more thoroughly just what is happening on the ground on each campus for undergraduates. I would also agree with your thought that the smaller colleges and universities probably lend themselves better to the advising activities than the larger research institutions.</p>

13

<p>As I said, I'm not that familiar with Stanford. But the idea that you would have to <em>stalk</em> a prof to talk to him/her at either Columbia or Yale is complete and utter nonsense. UG education is neither impersonal or distant--your words--at either. </p>

<p>One thing you really ought to learn is that each university is different. Within each university, different departments may difer. The fact that one student at Stanford rarely had a class with fewer than 50 students doesn't mean that students in other departments had the same experience. It certainly doesn't mean that econ students at Yale and Columbia do.</p>

14

<p>Intro classes are going to be huge at a large research university. Simply put, it is the tradeoff you make for the prestige as well as the unparalleled breadth of course offerings.</p>

<p>When I look at my transcript, I'd wager a guess that a bit less than half the classes I've taken would simply not be offered at a nearby LAC.</p>

<p>In exchange, I have taken 9 classes with 50 people or more (that's 9 out of 37).</p>

15

<p>And, again, bagels experience may be quite different than those of students at Yale and Columbia.</p>

16

<p>I'm a student at Columbia and I have never met anyone who came close to expressing something along the lines that "Many of [us] seem to feel like they wasted [our] time."</p>

<p>Top level schools will offer a great undergraduate experience, if not because of the strong professors, then due to the strong student bodies that you interact with on a daily basis.</p>

17

<p>lvilleslacker,
I think you make the key distinction which is the quality of your peers. More than any other factor, your college classmates are going to impact your undergraduate experience, both inside and outside of the classroom. Many schools will claim distinguished faculty and highly ranked departments, but much more frequently, when you get past the large intro classes, the smaller classes where you interact directly with professors and other students will be the highest quality learning experiences. And this is not to mention the relationships that you will form with your classmates and how these may be an important part of your life for decades to come. </p>

<p>So, when it comes to evaluating schools based on the best teaching, consider as well the intellectual quality of the student body as these individuals may be your best teachers.</p>

18

<p>Consider Pomona</a> College.</p>

<p>Average class size is 14, and with the cross-enrollment advantages of the adjacent [Claremont</a> Colleges<a href="Claremont%20McKenna,%20Harvey%20Mudd,%20Pitzer,%20Scripps">/url</a>, offers about 2,000 courses.</p>

<p>Your student peers have top credentials with median SAT scores of 740CR, 730M, and 720W (Class of 2011), ranked second behind Harvey Mudd amongst all LACs (USNWR), and comparable to Dartmouth, Duke, and Stanford. </p>

<p>With the fourth highest [url=<a href="http://www.nacubo.org/Images/All%20Institutions%20Listed%20by%20FY%202007%20Market%20Value%20of%20Endowment%20Assets_2007%20NES.pdf%5Dendowment"&gt;http://www.nacubo.org/Images/All%20Institutions%20Listed%20by%20FY%202007%20Market%20Value%20of%20Endowment%20Assets_2007%20NES.pdf]endowment&lt;/a> per student](<a href="http://www.claremont.edu/%5DClaremont"&gt;http://www.claremont.edu/) in the country (behind HYP, with $1.14M/student), they have the resources to provide university-quality facilities, and of course there are no grad students to spend money (or professor time) on.</p>

<p>And if you give some credit to advisors for helping freshmen keep on track so they don't drop out or transfer, then consider that Pomona has the highest freshman retention rate (99%) in the country (USNWR).</p>

<p>Just got back from Parent's Weekend there (so yes, I'm biased), but I was reminded how different (and better) that experience is for my D than the one my wife and I had at a large Ivy where I met only about half my professors and had several classes over 250. In contrast, D's biggest class is Intro to Econ, with about 30 students.</p>

<p>Having said that, many universities put a lot more emphasis on undergraduate teaching than they used to (Yale and Dartmouth come to mind), so I think you'll have a lot of options.</p>

19

<p>As SarahsDad implies, it really depends on fit. I personally would hate to go to Pomona or any of the Claremonts -- not because they aren't good schools, but because I prefer large universities. Stanford, Penn, Harvard, Berkeley, UCLA -- all those are large, which means seemingly endless opportunities, libraries, research projects, courses (I think Berkeley has ~3,500 just for undergrads), activities (UCLA boasts ~800 student groups), and more. I don't think my education at any of these would be compromised.</p>

20

<p>We had a math major transfer to Harvey Mudd from Princeton this past year. According to her, the relative teaching quality at Princeton is pure crap.</p>

<p>and also, as a transfer myself from a UC, the Claremont Colleges together feel like a large university; huge class selection and over 4000 students when you include all 5 schools. Granted its not the 20k plus at other ones, the feel of being around 4 and 20 thousand dont feel that much different. There are just a lot of other people. Plus research opportunities are always there. YAY particle physics!</p>

<p>But at the same time it feels small as well in the good ways. My quantum mech professor's wife makes the best berry pie, EVER!</p>

<p>We cant beat Cal's library though; thats for sure. But with the internet today.....</p>