Less prayer needed at University of Mississippi than at Caltech…
3 Likes
Free is free… but I hear you!
1 Like
Cherry-picking much? There are about 150 R1 institutions.
There are lots of R1s. Lots are easy admits, and lots offer an undergraduate experience that can be more sports-and-frat-focused than academically focused for students who want that experience. And the vast majority of professors end up teaching at institutions that are lower-ranked than the ones where they did their undergrad and graduate degrees. The professors I know at R1s (including some highly regarded institutions) have usually sent their kids to different schools, ranging from LACs to different R1s.
5 Likes
This study (“Where Do the Children of Professors Attend College?”) was conducted for the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2003 by two Vanderbilt econ profs (and subsequently published in the Economics of Education Review in 2006.)
I don’t think much has changed in the past two decades (and in fact, the push for reputational gain via research output is likely stronger).
Key finding:
“The children of selective Liberal Arts college staff are significantly more likely to choose to attend Liberal Arts colleges…The children of Liberal Arts college staff are more than seven times more likely to choose a Liberal Arts college than the benchmark group in NELS and the children of Research university staff are more than three times as likely to choose a Liberal Arts college.”
Some context from the intro:
People often choose a college based on reputation. Consequently, as a university’s
national ranking grows, it typically enjoys a substantial increase in applications. (Monks
and Ehrenberg, 1999) When athletic teams appear in prominent televised contests,
applications often rise. When asked what sells, the Dean of Admissions at one research
university said “Research.”1 Universities respond with measures to enhance their place
in national rankings, including higher subsidies for prime-time athletics and more
research.Such efforts may diminish the quality of educational services delivered to
undergraduates. The emphasis on graduate education and research causes one prominent
research university to have 40 percent of its undergraduate instruction conducted by
graduate students and another 30 percent by adjunct faculty. 2 Another recently
announced a plan to “allow its senior faculty to be eligible for a paid sabbatical term
after each six terms in residence (rather than the current twelve)” undoubtedly leaving
fewer undergraduate courses staffed by the senior faculty. 3 With an emphasis on
national rankings that seems to be driven in part by research accomplishments, many
universities offer little reward to faculty who are successful teachers. As an institution’s
emphasis on research expands, undergraduates can expect to have less contact with the
faculty who generate the university’s reputation and are likely to find faculty focused on
research rather than on undergraduates’ instructional needs.
2 Likes
We often hear on CC that some, or certain types of colleges, are more focused on undergraduate teaching. What exactly does that mean? Smaller classes? Better classroom instructors because they aren’t distracted by their research responsibilities? More resources/funding for classroom instructions? More course selections and options for students? Are any of these claims actually true?
1 Like
deleted
It is a 20 year old study of data that is likely much older than that. Is there any relevance for the current day?
1 Like
It is true that some colleges are focused on teaching undergrads? Yes.
2 Likes
For an honest reply to this, I’d say that some institutions are so large and diversified in structure that they lack centralized educational priorities. “Third-tier prioritiy” really pertains to someone else’s point of view.
1 Like
In their study, the Vanderbilt economics professors specifically mentioned “the emphasis on graduate education and research” by research institutions as detrimental to undergraduate education.
R1 is a low bar. Saying a school is R1 is like saying a school plays division 1 FBS football (146 vs 129). For every Alabama/Georgia there is a Temple/Akron. HUGE differences in player talent and resources. Even AAU membership isn’t that big of a deal—it is akin to being a member of a power 5 conference (71 vs 65), where perennial bottom-dwellers Vanderbilt/Duke reside.
As a faculty member at a large state school ranked around 100 (R1 but not AAU), my colleagues’ kids go to all kinds of places, from HYPSM to t50 to t150. Roughly 20% of those I know go/went to our own school, not because they are not excellent students, but because of employee tuition waiver, wanting to stay close to home, etc., just like most non-academic parents. Some colleagues also believe in the “no one cares where you went for undergrad once you get your MS/MA/PhD.”
As for teaching quality of schools that’s being discussed here, I cringe each time I come across online reviews that say “professors at (insert state school) are excellent at teaching and care a lot about their students!” Students who wrote these reviews likely have their favorite professors in mind when they wrote it. But what a small sample bias. Each student is taught by approximately 40 professors in their entire undergraduate career, which represent only roughly 1% of the faculty members at a large state school.
Regarding comments on large state schools focusing on research at the expense of teaching, at my school (and likely most large publics out there), no one gets hired/tenured/promoted for their teaching prowess. Adjuncts would never sniff tenure-track no matter how many amazing online reviews students write for them. And while teaching performance makes up nearly half of the annual evaluation, you can bet that it’s the research dollars and papers churned out that count. But it’s the same pretty much everywhere.
4 Likes
A great research institution typically attracts great grad students and great industry partnerships, and as it usually happens - a ton of funding. These put together generally shape thefuture of that academic area. All of that is a massive advantage to the students learning in that ecosystem.
There are a lot of schools focused exclusively on undergrads and they do a great job educating them (In STEM, Mudd and Rose Hulman are shining examples) but that doesn’t mean an MIT or Stanford will do a poorer job. I find the whole “research at the cost of undergrad education” argument to be pretty silly.
1 Like
Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."
and
“College Confidential forums exist to discuss college admission and other topics of interest. It is not a place for contentious debate. If you find yourself repeating talking points, it might be time to step away and do something else… If a thread starts to get heated, it might be closed or heavily moderated.”
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/guidelines
Thread 
until tomorrow
This topic was automatically opened after 9 hours.
LAC advocates typically emphasize the first two. Smaller classes, at least at lower levels, appears commonly true. Better classroom instructors can be a subjective assessment, though LAC advocates often make the case that TAs commonly used as supplemental instructors are worse (but what about adjuncts, which LACs as well as other schools use)?
But course selections, particularly at upper levels, tend to be more limited at LACs, and graduate level courses are less likely to be present. Also, popular courses and majors like CS can be rationed like at any other school.
1 Like
College staff, being in the higher education industry, are more likely to know that smaller and less well known colleges like LACs exist, so such colleges are more likely to be known to their kids than to high school students in the general public.
1 Like