<p>yes, many of the top names do only teach graduate studides. However, generalizing can be dangerous. Many top people teach undergrads. For example, Richard Feynman, who was a Nobel Prize winning Physicist taught undergrads at Cal Tech. </p>
<p>I would admit that at the major universities such as Michigan, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, professors are rewarded more for research than teaching,unlike that of LACs. However, it is NOT fair to generalize that undergrads never get taught by famous professors.</p>
<p>College versus University - count the great Galbraith in as a 'uni-Booster' with a little dose of...unfounded opinion. But hey, he wrote 'The Affluent Society', among many great works. Greg</a> Mankiw's Blog: Colleges vs Universities</p>
<p>I think that we need to avoid stereotyping here. There are great teachers at the research universities and there are great researchers and writers at the LACs. However, in philosophy, research universities place greater emphasis on research. It is their bread and butter. It provides dollars in the form of grants and boosts their reputations which increases giving. LACs philisophically value teaching. It is what the emphasize in all of their literature - small classes, relationships, discussion groups, etc. One type of school is not better or worse than another. Hawkette summed it up quite well. Decide what your needs and desires are and go from there. Ultimately you will get a fine education from either kind of institution.</p>
<p>Professors at liberal arts colleges aren't hired for their research. I assist in the hiring professor for new faculty in my department, so here's my perspective on how it works. The single biggest factor in a professor gaining a position is their job talk--the quality of their lecture, interaction with students, comfort in the classroom. The quality and quantity of their research is secondary (it's still considered), as we seek historians who are first and foremost teachers. When professors are teaching three courses one semester, and two another semester, they don't have time to produce tons of research, compared to ivy league faculty who might only teach one upper division course per year, and have the assistance of grad students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GoBlues, I hope you see that as you bash 'LAC boosters', you are a 'booster' for something yourself.
[/quote]
Moi? I wasn't 'bashing' anyone. I simply asked that if people are gonna make claims like ... "grad students to take over the intro courses" ... that they be able to back it up with examples.</p>
<p>I didn't get my answer. So aside from Calculus, which are some of these "intro courses" grad students take over at research universities?</p>
<p>At UW Madison grad students teach a number of of the intro English classes. Grad students also lead the discussion sections of many science classes, are responsible for the science labs and do a considerable amount of grading for intro courses. The professors, however, do the primary lecturing for science classes.</p>
<p>"I've heard of professors at Yale and Harvard and Princeton sending their kids to schools like Kenyon."</p>
<p>Likely a lot of reasons:
- a S/D of a Harvard or Yale professor doesn't need the name cache or contacts of HYPS
- it's easier to stand out and gain research experience at a LAC
- HYPS professor hold a bias against their schools</p>
<p>For the sons and daughters of recognized professors at top schools, it's hard to turn down HYPS unless a LAC is a perfect fit for them.</p>