<p>And if this were 1995....</p>
<p>As many have noted, things don't change that fast. In 1995 UW was #3 in research funding. In 2006 it was #2. Academic reputations are built on research. In the US News discussion UW went up 7 slots from 1997-2007.
Also the undergrads are way up in quality.</p>
<p>2007 numbers </p>
<hr>
<p>50-53%ish acceptance rate this year with 26K apps and an average ACT of 28.6</p>
<p>Also, there are more Fortune 500 CEOs who graduated from UW than from any other university.</p>
<p>At UW, most classes, even large lectures, are taught by faculty with the discussion sections being conducted by TAs. Some of the top faculty at the school even teach intro classes. I do believe that some of the intro English classes might be taught only by TAs, but I think they are the only ones.</p>
<p>"As many have noted, things don't change that fast."</p>
<p>-I'm really not saying that they do. I'm just raising the question of just how old data can be before they become irrelevant- 5 years? 10? 20? At what point will some information from the late 80s (or mid 90s for that matter) be obsolete in these kinds of discussions?</p>
<p>Why are Cal-Berk, UVA and UCLA prestigious?</p>
<p>All top state schools (Cal, Michigan, Wisconsin) are prestigious because they are research powerhouses, especially in the sciences. With such great research, these schools have some of the best graduate programs in the country but for the sake of CC'ers that doesn't necessarily correlate to a good undergraduate program. I would say that if you are instate these schools are a much better choice than some of the top ranked private research institutions for ex: JHU and WashU (this is coming from my prospective as a future researcher, so it doesn't really apply to everyone). If you're looking for a really undergrad-focused education then you probably should look elsewhere...</p>
<p>
[quote]
But TAs don't really teach undergrads. Some freshman discussion groups are led by TAs, but 97% of classes at Michigan are taught by professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, since that's accurate, but is entirely true? Of course, TAs don't teach undergrads at Michigan; GSIs do! And if GSI only teach 3% of the classes, that must mean that professors teach the remaining 97%. But why are GSI then teaching 22 Percent of Student Credit Hours Taught by Graduate Student Instructors in Organized Undergraduate Course Sections?</p>
<p>Fwiw, isn't amazing how much effort is spent dismissing the existence of TA, RA, GSI, or whatever glorious name is used to mask the indenture servant status of those who are not really teaching. :)</p>
<p>All Undergraduate Courses (Courses Numbered 100-499)
Taught by Faculty 73%
Faculty & GSI 24%
GSIs Only 3% </p>
<p>Percent of Student Credit Hours Taught by Graduate Student Instructors in Organized Undergraduate Course Sections </p>
<p>Academic Year 2003-2004 Total
Total Student Credit Hours Taught in All Organized Undergraduate Course Sections 681,465<br>
Total Student Credit Hours Taught by GSIs in Organized Undergraduate Course Sections 150,396<br>
*GSI Teaching as a Percent of Total 22% *</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/gsi-sa/teach.html#percent%5B/url%5D">http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/gsi-sa/teach.html#percent</a></p>
<p>That would cover mostly discussion sections and labs as each is usually one or two credits. They do teach some basic courses on math and languages. As many of those cover material that might have been taken in HS, an instructor well into their PhD program is well qualified. Schools without grad students often use adjuncts to do the same thing.
The service as a TA, GSI is considered part of the educational process in getting a PhD. Nothing like having to explain and test people on material to ensure that you know what you are doing a future professor.</p>
<p>Xiggi, that's exactly what I said. Only in 3% of the courses at Michigan are taught by GSIs (or TAs). In 73% of the cases, courses are taught by only faculty, in 24% of the cases, courses are taught by faculty and complemented by GSIs ( in most cases as lab or group discussion leaders).</p>
<p>I am not sure how the course sections credits are broken down. I suspect that the reason for the discrepancy between the percentage of courses taught by GSIs and the percentage of credit hours taught by GSIs can be explained by examining the nature of the courses taught by GSIs. They are usually lower levels, into-classes required by all Freshmen (such as Calculus I and II, intro to College Writing etc...). Those courses are broken down into dozens of sections. They make up only 3% of the courses taught at Michigan, but given the size of the school and the mandatory nature of those courses, the number of sections required to accommodate the thousands of Freshmen who take them numbers in the hundreds. Calculus and Writing sections seldom exceed 20 students. Almost 90% of Michigan's Freshmen must take Calculus I and/or II and Writing. That means that more than 500 sections are required to teach those 3 courses...and almost all of them are taught by GSIs. You can bet a large chunk of the 22% of credits taught by GSIs are in those types of sections (basic, mandatory intro level Math and Wiritng courses). </p>
<p>I personally like the fact that Michigan does not hide those figures. Most private elites will have similar GSI figures but they would never share them with the public. Only students at LACs and at non-research intensive universities get to experience college without GSIs, and that isn't necessarily a good thing. I only had a handful of GSIs while at Michigan, but with the exception of just one of them, they were awesome.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I just don't see UW as a prestigious school. Michigan, yes. Michigan has a fantastic national and international reputation, an intellectual (a bit nerdy) student body, and challenging academics. I can't say the same about Wisconsin talking to many peers about the institution.</p>
<p>UW highly promotes the 70 academic departments in the top 10 nationally. It is based off the NRC rankings, US News, and in some cases the only known rankings out there, such as the NCA's ranking of communication programs. At UW, you can in theory have 160 different majors, fwiw.</p>
<p>As for A2Wolves, we're all entitled to our opinion, even a rising sophomore at a middle of the road public university who apparently has an affinity toward his hometown university. But, I did enjoy meeting with the adcom of graduate programs which raved about the quality of courses I had taken, professors I've worked with, and my research experience. But ya know, water under the bridge. Prreeetty much happens to students from all schools.</p>
<p>HTH.</p>
<p>oh, and if you think the long island kids or frat boys at Michigan are intellectual and nerdy, puhlease.</p>
<p>Wait, you just said that I have an affinity for Michigan? What? Are you serious?</p>
<p>You can tell the knowledge level of this poster by making the statement that Indiana is a "middle of the world" university.</p>
<p>Look, I have lots of friends at both Michigan and Wisconsin. And the pattern is that the Michigan rejects go to Wisconsin. In addition, the kids who aren't so nerdy, actually look half decent, go to Wisconsin and party. Michigan doesn't have that party atmosphere, they have an intellectual atmosphere. Maybe i'm tying in the personality with intelligence, but when I meet a student from Wisconsin, then one from Michigan, there is a difference.</p>
<p>When I speak to people about Michigan, the words "great school" always come out. This is from students in California, Texas, New York, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Ohio. However, Wisconsin isn't in that category. The first thing that comes out of people's mouths about Wisconsin is "party", or some who say "that's a GOOD school". There's a noticeable difference.</p>
<p>I think that this is most telling in the "top 10%" statistic. Wisconsin only has 58% of their students in the top 10% of their class. Michigan has 90%. To get in the top 10%, you need to work hard, you need to have a brain. That's not to say that you don't need those qualities to achieve top 25%, but it is much more difficult to get in the top 10% as you are shining against other intellectuals.</p>
<p>I would speak more, but I have to go to work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, that's exactly what I said. Only in 3% of the courses at Michigan are taught by GSIs (or TAs). In 73% of the cases, courses are taught by only faculty, in 24% of the cases, courses are taught by faculty and complemented by GSIs ( in most cases as lab or group discussion leaders).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alexandre, I thought you'd enjoy seeing the numbers disclosed by the school. That sure beats unsupported opinions. After all, all of us are interested in the truth!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suspect that the reason for the discrepancy between the percentage of courses taught by GSIs and the percentage of credit hours taught by GSIs can be explained by examining the nature of the courses taught by GSIs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That should be pretty simple: a credit hour taught is a credit hour. Pretty straightforward ... and a LOT more than merely listing courses without breaking down the distribution.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally like the fact that Michigan does not hide those figures. Most private elites will have similar GSI figures but they would never share them with the public. Only students at LACs and at non-research intensive universities get to experience college without GSIs, and that isn't necessarily a good thing. I only had a handful of GSIs while at Michigan, but with the exception of just one of them, they were awesome.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alexandre, I agree with the fist part of your last statement. That is why I always smile at the GIGANTIC effort by research school fans to diminish the presence and contributions of people carrying the titles of GSI or related monikers. </p>
<p>As far as GSI or TA being a "good thing," that must be in the eye of the beholder. As far as I am concerned, since the schools do not charge two type of tuition (depending if they consider a certain class worthy of a full professor or not) I would tend to believe that a student paying full rate for the benefit of being "educated" by a GSI who may or may not have any teaching qualifications. command of English, nor any intention of ever being a teacher is ... being screwed out of money and experience. I wonder what clients of law firms would think when their cases are handled by paralegals but are billed at the same rates charged by a senior partner. Only in academia! </p>
<p>Obviously, there are sufficient people who think differently and support the current system, and I have no problems whatsoever in recognizing the validity of a different opinion. As far as I am concerned whoever said that "everyone is entitled to his or her opinions, but not his or her facts." was darn right. The difference between facts and opinions is, however, hardly noticeable in the many discussions hosted by CC on the issues of TAs or VERIFIABLE presence of academics at schools labeled research universities.</p>
<p>How many adjuncts are teaching at many privates in place of TA/GSIs?? I am sure they don't highlight that fact either.</p>
<p>How many TAs have no intention of ever teaching? Is this a large proportion?</p>
<p>And this wanders a little further afield, but I don't think being a GSI is anything like indentured servitude at Michigan. Oh, sure, the GEO would have you believe the working conditions mirror that of third-world mines, but in truth U-M offers full tuition paid, a decent stipend, and decent health insurance. It compares very favorably to other publics--or at least it did when I was a GSI.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, there are more Fortune 500 CEOs who graduated from UW than from any other university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, it's actually the S&P 500, not the Fortune 500. Further, it should be noted that Wisconsin actually tied Harvard. Considering the fact that Wisconsin is several times larger than Harvard is, I think this is actually a strong point in favor of Harvard. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0145.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0145.asp</a></p>
<p>A guy at my son's grad school who went to UMich for undergrad said he didn't have a class taught by a prof until he was a junior. His major was geology.</p>
<p>List below is from Princeton Review. Grads teaching undergrads depends on the dept or school within the college. At OSU, grads are not allowed to teach classes in the Geology Dept. At SUNY Binghamton, the Watson School of Engineering website states that profs teach all their classes. Note the "upper-level" distinction in the question. Kinda implies it's the norm for undergrad.</p>
<p>From Princeton Review:
What percentage of upper-level courses is taught by teaching assistants?</p>
<p>1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign<br>
2 Purdue University--West Lafayette<br>
3 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor<br>
4 University of Kentucky<br>
5 University of Tennessee--Knoxville<br>
6 University of Florida<br>
7 Ohio State University - Columbus<br>
8 University of Washington<br>
9 University of New Mexico<br>
10 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey--New Brunswick/Piscataway Campus<br>
11 Florida State University<br>
12 University of Minnesota--Twin Cities<br>
13 State University of New York at Binghamton<br>
14 University of Iowa<br>
15 Michigan State University<br>
16 University of California-Los Angeles<br>
17 Drexel University<br>
18 New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology<br>
19 University of Wisconsin-Madison<br>
20 State University of New York--University at Buffalo </p>
<p>Most important is to do your own research work. Find a list of the faculty for the dept(s) you're interested in, find a list of grad students within that dept, and find the online course schedules for each semester to see who is listed as teaching the courses within your intended major. You can go ever further and look them up on RateMyProfs site, although that seems to be down at the moment. Read all the comments. </p>
<p>Don't rely on lists or what someone else told someone. Research yourself.</p>
<p>momhippo, your son's friend musty have made an effort to avoid classes taught by professors. I personally took over 40 classes at Michigan and not a single one of them was taught by a TA. I had a handful of TAs, but they all led discussion groups. The actual courses were all taught by a faculty member. That's because I did not take any intro level classes at Michigan, so admittedly, Freshmen who must take 100 level courses in Math, English writing and foreign Languages, as well as some entry level classes in Engineering will have classes taught by TAs, but most Michigan students avoid 100 level classes as much as possible.</p>
<p>As for the Princeton Review, the rankings depend on the honesty of the university. Like I said above, Michigan is very honest. If you look closely at what Michigan puts under classes taught by faculty in the Princeton Review, you will notice that Michigan says 73%. Michigan could easily have said 97% since another 24% of Michigan classes are taught by professors but assisted by TAs. Michigan's ethical standards dictate that it cannot list those classes among the classes taught by faculty. Other universities aren't quite as honest. For example, according to the Princeton Review, 100% of classes at Cal, Harvard are taught by professors. That is clearly not true. </p>
<p>I agree that one must not rely on what any one person says on this forum. I am actually glad that Xiggy added to my post by providing links that show that 73% of courses at Michigan are taught by faculty and another 24% of courses are taught by professors and then, broken down into weekly discussion groups led by TAs. Only 3% of courses at Michigan are actually taught by TAs.</p>