What Makes an Elite School?

[beero1000]

That's just not true. Standard loads for full professors at major research universities are usually one or two classes per semester, with possible reduction due to administrative responsibilities. If they're lucky 1 or 2 of those classes per year might be graduate level. Statistically, about a third of an average full professor's 60 hour work week is spend on teaching, grading, or preparing for classes.

On the other hand, the best researchers often don't make the best teachers, so if you want to learn physics at an undergraduate level, a top tier research university may not be the best choice.

Top researchers are not often found teaching undergrad classes. Even when their names are attached to the class, the teaching is often performed by grad students, which is sometimes a better deal.

By your own estimation of a tenured full professor teaching one or two classes each semester, and one or two per year--or up to half of those being grad classes, an undergrad is not very likely to be taught by a tenured full professor, much less a world class researcher, who often have reduced teaching loads and concentrate on their own work, funded by grants they bring to the university.

Tenured full professors spend more than 30% of their time preparing, lecturing, and administrating the classes they teach. That is fact, and counts their time spent, which already accounts for course reductions and graduate teaching assistants. Even if half of those courses are graduate courses (they're not), that is still a significant amount of time teaching undergraduates, which means you are incorrect. Hell, I know for a fact that at least one Fields Medalist taught Calc 1 this semester.

The fact that most classes are not taught by tenured professors is due to the fact that there are not enough tenured professors to do all the requisite teaching, not because top researchers are avoiding undergrads.

 

[barbos]

Nobel Prize winners attract students but they are not inherently better teachers, probably the opposite in fact.
Elite schools work hard on maintaining their "elite" status. It allows to charge more for education after all.
But in reality as far as undergrad education concerned there is not much difference between bulk of the schools.
Truth is, if they truly wanted to be elite they would have have to be selecting elite students but they are not really doing that, because that would interfere with charging more for education.

 

[Toni]

Top researchers are not often found teaching undergrad classes. Even when their names are attached to the class, the teaching is often performed by grad students, which is sometimes a better deal.

By your own estimation of a tenured full professor teaching one or two classes each semester, and one or two per year--or up to half of those being grad classes, an undergrad is not very likely to be taught by a tenured full professor, much less a world class researcher, who often have reduced teaching loads and concentrate on their own work, funded by grants they bring to the university.

Tenured full professors spend more than 30% of their time preparing, lecturing, and administrating the classes they teach. That is fact, and counts their time spent, which already accounts for course reductions and graduate teaching assistants. Even if half of those courses are graduate courses (they're not), that is still a significant amount of time teaching undergraduates, which means you are incorrect. Hell, I know for a fact that at least one Fields Medalist taught Calc 1 this semester.

The fact that most classes are not taught by tenured professors is due to the fact that there are not enough tenured professors to do all the requisite teaching, not because top researchers are avoiding undergrads.

I was using your math for my estimate.

YOU claimed that tenured full professors at top research universities taught on average one to two classes a semester. So, 2 to 4 classes/academic year. Minus any reduction for administrative duties. And one or two of those are grad classes. Leaving not much room for undergrads.

Of course you specified STANDARD loads. Top researchers often have reduced loads and teach at most one class a year.

 

[barbos]

speaking of elite schools:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...calculate-spot-ensure-privacy-men-s-room.html

 

[beero1000]

Tenured full professors spend more than 30% of their time preparing, lecturing, and administrating the classes they teach. That is fact, and counts their time spent, which already accounts for course reductions and graduate teaching assistants. Even if half of those courses are graduate courses (they're not), that is still a significant amount of time teaching undergraduates, which means you are incorrect. Hell, I know for a fact that at least one Fields Medalist taught Calc 1 this semester.

The fact that most classes are not taught by tenured professors is due to the fact that there are not enough tenured professors to do all the requisite teaching, not because top researchers are avoiding undergrads.

I was using your math for my estimate.

YOU claimed that tenured full professors at top research universities taught on average one to two classes a semester. So, 2 to 4 classes/academic year. Minus any reduction for administrative duties. And one or two of those are grad classes. Leaving not much room for undergrads.

Of course you specified STANDARD loads. Top researchers often have reduced loads and teach at most one class a year.

No, they don't. Of course, you can shift the goalposts any way you like, but you were the one who made the hyperbolic claim that the only undergrads professors see are cleaning floors. That is simply not true. On average, professors spend more than 20 hours a week on teaching duties, with at least half of that being undergraduate teaching.

You can believe anything you like, but like I said for my field, I know for a fact that the best mathematicians in the world teach introductory level undergraduate math courses. Now, that doesn't mean that they are the best equipped to teach those classes, but they do teach them.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

speaking of elite schools:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...calculate-spot-ensure-privacy-men-s-room.html

Best urinals are the gold plated ones with attendants who wipe your pee-pee.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

speaking of elite schools:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...calculate-spot-ensure-privacy-men-s-room.html

Best urinals are the gold plated ones with attendants who wipe your pee-pee.

I've always found that the best urinals are the skulls of my vanquished enemies. That may just be a Canadian thing, though.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Best urinals are the gold plated ones with attendants who wipe your pee-pee.

I've always found that the best urinals are the skulls of my vanquished enemies. That may just be a Canadian thing, though.

Now you all know what goes on at Skull and Bones.

 

[ronburgundy]

Tenured full professors spend more than 30% of their time preparing, lecturing, and administrating the classes they teach. That is fact, and counts their time spent, which already accounts for course reductions and graduate teaching assistants. Even if half of those courses are graduate courses (they're not), that is still a significant amount of time teaching undergraduates, which means you are incorrect. Hell, I know for a fact that at least one Fields Medalist taught Calc 1 this semester.

The fact that most classes are not taught by tenured professors is due to the fact that there are not enough tenured professors to do all the requisite teaching, not because top researchers are avoiding undergrads.

I was using your math for my estimate.

YOU claimed that tenured full professors at top research universities taught on average one to two classes a semester. So, 2 to 4 classes/academic year. Minus any reduction for administrative duties. And one or two of those are grad classes. Leaving not much room for undergrads.

Of course you specified STANDARD loads. Top researchers often have reduced loads and teach at most one class a year.

By definition "top researchers" are small % of the faculty, even at highly competitive schools like UCLA and UT. Also, beer100's numbers were an overly low estimate applying to only a handful of schools. The average at most Research Universities is closer to 2 courses per semester and 1 per year being graduate level, thus 3 undergrad courses per year. Most profs do not get reductions, because outside of science areas where all research requires sizable grants, most faculty are not getting grants they need to get such reductions. Some Research Universities have completely eliminated such grant-based reductions. Besides, those numbers are largely irrelevant, because they say nothing about the % of courses taught by tenure track professors. Every Prof could teach 1 course and yet 100% of courses are taught by Profs.

And again, the % of non-tenure track part-time faculty is about double at non-research, liberal Arts and "Regional" Universities (e.g., most State Colleges). Those schools have a higher course load, so the two factors counter-balance and the odds of an undergrad seeing a real prof is only a bit lower at a Research University. Not to mention, schools with better students get their pick of the best among those part-time instructors.

But more important that all that is the fact that your starting with the false premise that "elite" = Research University. There are more and less elite schools within all these types, with some of the worlds most competitive schools being Liberal Arts, and some Research Universities requiring little more than a pulse to get admitted.

The biggest relevant factor is the % of applicants accepted based upon their prior academic record, and all the categories of schools vary massively in that regard.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobel Prize winners attract students but they are not inherently better teachers, probably the opposite in fact.
Elite schools work hard on maintaining their "elite" status. It allows to charge more for education after all.
But in reality as far as undergrad education concerned there is not much difference between bulk of the schools.
Truth is, if they truly wanted to be elite they would have have to be selecting elite students but they are not really doing that, because that would interfere with charging more for education.

I haven't been to an elite college. What I do know is that having a high quality professor is extremely important. What the professor knows means absolute dick. Their ability to translate that knowledge to the student is the key part.

I remember being taught something in a structural analysis class and while I could do it, it wasn't quite obvious. Our prime professor went into the same subject briefly in an advanced analysis class and not only did it all click, he made it as obvious as "water is wet".

The other main aspect is job placement. Today more than at any other time in our nation's history, initial job placement is crucial! A school that can help you plant your feet on the ground gains value very quickly.

 

[Toni]

I was using your math for my estimate.

YOU claimed that tenured full professors at top research universities taught on average one to two classes a semester. So, 2 to 4 classes/academic year. Minus any reduction for administrative duties. And one or two of those are grad classes. Leaving not much room for undergrads.

Of course you specified STANDARD loads. Top researchers often have reduced loads and teach at most one class a year.

By definition "top researchers" are small % of the faculty, even at highly competitive schools like UCLA and UT. Also, beer100's numbers were an overly low estimate applying to only a handful of schools. The average at most Research Universities is closer to 2 courses per semester and 1 per year being graduate level, thus 3 undergrad courses per year. Most profs do not get reductions, because outside of science areas where all research requires sizable grants, most faculty are not getting grants they need to get such reductions. Some Research Universities have completely eliminated such grant-based reductions. Besides, those numbers are largely irrelevant, because they say nothing about the % of courses taught by tenure track professors. Every Prof could teach 1 course and yet 100% of courses are taught by Profs.

And again, the % of non-tenure track part-time faculty is about double at non-research, liberal Arts and "Regional" Universities (e.g., most State Colleges). Those schools have a higher course load, so the two factors counter-balance and the odds of an undergrad seeing a real prof is only a bit lower at a Research University. Not to mention, schools with better students get their pick of the best among those part-time instructors.

But more important that all that is the fact that your starting with the false premise that "elite" = Research University. There are more and less elite schools within all these types, with some of the worlds most competitive schools being Liberal Arts, and some Research Universities requiring little more than a pulse to get admitted.

The biggest relevant factor is the % of applicants accepted based upon their prior academic record, and all the categories of schools vary massively in that regard.

I was obviously referring to research in laboratory science, which is extremely time intensive. I was also referring specifically to the chances that an undergrad would have to take a course from a top research scientist at a large research university.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, nothing that can currently exist.

HBCUs do it on a regular basis. And on budget that only works by squeezing a dollar out of a dime. Now I know you know nothing about HBCUs or black people or people of any color who give a shit about people, but all these things exist and all these people do the things you say can't be done.

"Limitless" can't exist.

Furthermore, the more difference between students in a class the less education that will be delivered.

Daniel Ho, a professor at Stanford Law School, ran his own empirical study and found that attending a more selective school has “no detectable effect” on whether a black student passes the bar exam. A 2007 study called “The Effects of Affirmative Action Higher Education” produced similar findings — that “minority students who benefited from affirmative action earned higher grades and left school at lower rates than others, and they expressed neither greater nor less satisfaction.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rsities/?postshare=5421449780216566&tid=ss_fb

The bar exam is not a good measure of one's actual ability at law.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

nm

 

[Nexus]

A new analysis of federal data, however, confirms that where that diploma comes from—and whether a student gets an advanced degree—can affect future earnings as much as the choice of undergraduate major, if not more.

link

 

[barbos]

Nobel Prize winners attract students but they are not inherently better teachers, probably the opposite in fact.
Elite schools work hard on maintaining their "elite" status. It allows to charge more for education after all.
But in reality as far as undergrad education concerned there is not much difference between bulk of the schools.
Truth is, if they truly wanted to be elite they would have have to be selecting elite students but they are not really doing that, because that would interfere with charging more for education.

I haven't been to an elite college. What I do know is that having a high quality professor is extremely important. What the professor knows means absolute dick. Their ability to translate that knowledge to the student is the key part.

This is true especially for undergrads in US who are really just average high school kids and require a lot of babysitting.
The thing which shocked me in US (compared my time in Russia) was very low level of undergrad students. Then I realized that pretty much everybody go to university in US and you are forced to effectively lower the bar because of it. It's inevitable end result of for profit education system. You have Nobel Prize winners really teaching really ordinary kids, which would be quite ridiculous in Russia, even after taking into account that there are much less nobel prize winners in Russia. You can't have elite universities with 30k students in it in my humble opinion.

 

[arkirk]

I haven't been to an elite college. What I do know is that having a high quality professor is extremely important. What the professor knows means absolute dick. Their ability to translate that knowledge to the student is the key part.

This is true especially for undergrads in US who are really just average high school kids and require a lot of babysitting.
The thing which shocked me in US (compared my time in Russia) was very low level of undergrad students. Then I realized that pretty much everybody go to university in US and you are forced to effectively lower the bar because of it. It's inevitable end result of for profit education system. You have Nobel Prize winners really teaching really ordinary kids, which would be quite ridiculous in Russia, even after taking into account that there are much less nobel prize winners in Russia. You can't have elite universities with 30k students in it in my humble opinion.

Learning is learning. It is not a matter of putting up bars for students to jump over. I believe the idea you have was satirized in Gulliver's Travels. Learning depends on interest of the student and a reasonable presentation of materials by the teacher. If the teacher really knows his stuff, he can write a book about it and a student can learn about it without ever affording the entry fees of the elite schools. These are essentially just where rich people send their kids. An elite school is one to which admission is heavily coveted and few will be allowed to attend. These schools tout themselves as those who inform the leaders of society...so they really are a social thing for a good many people. Some of them focus on how to be an elite rich person and a leader of men...without any purpose other than extending the family's fortune and rule over society. I think we probably could do without these schools and it may be better to in fact teach all the really "ordinary kids" lessons they may learn to apply in new and original ways. There is nothing wrong with knowledge being more widely dispersed in society. In fact it may just increase the chance of new findings and even new sciences. Much of out current technology is the product of non classical non elite non college graduates.

 

[barbos]

This is true especially for undergrads in US who are really just average high school kids and require a lot of babysitting.
The thing which shocked me in US (compared my time in Russia) was very low level of undergrad students. Then I realized that pretty much everybody go to university in US and you are forced to effectively lower the bar because of it. It's inevitable end result of for profit education system. You have Nobel Prize winners really teaching really ordinary kids, which would be quite ridiculous in Russia, even after taking into account that there are much less nobel prize winners in Russia. You can't have elite universities with 30k students in it in my humble opinion.

Learning is learning. It is not a matter of putting up bars for students to jump over. I believe the idea you have was satirized in Gulliver's Travels. Learning depends on interest of the student and a reasonable presentation of materials by the teacher. If the teacher really knows his stuff, he can write a book about it and a student can learn about it without ever affording the entry fees of the elite schools. These are essentially just where rich people send their kids. An elite school is one to which admission is heavily coveted and few will be allowed to attend. These schools tout themselves as those who inform the leaders of society...so they really are a social thing for a good many people. Some of them focus on how to be an elite rich person and a leader of men...without any purpose other than extending the family's fortune and rule over society. I think we probably could do without these schools and it may be better to in fact teach all the really "ordinary kids" lessons they may learn to apply in new and original ways. There is nothing wrong with knowledge being more widely dispersed in society. In fact it may just increase the chance of new findings and even new sciences. Much of out current technology is the product of non classical non elite non college graduates.

I think we use different definition of "elite" here. I use "elite" with respect to students, and you use it with respect to school.
In my opinion students make school elite. Your definition of "elite" have a strong negative connotation, whereas mine does not.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

What makes an elite school? I have some co-workers who went do Dartmouth, Harvard and Yale. This is what they said. 1st: The sons and daughters of the elite go there. 2nd: It must be well funded. A poorly funded school can't be elite. 3rd: It must have a very good library. 4th: It must have top quality faculty. The faculty need not teach. Scornful underpaid graduate students can teach the undergrads. But there MUST be top quality faculty names associated with the school. 5th: It must be choosy about its students. If just anybody can get in, it's not an elite school. 6th: The reputation. It MUST be reputed a top quality school.


Eldarion Lathria