Why go to an elite college? "because somebody might actually be able to take the time to teach you there..."
HA HA HA HA HA! Seriously, we're supposed to believe that "elite" colleges teach better, when new hires are chosen and tenured mostly on the basis of the ability to publish? And when the prof has three teaching assistants (some of whom may only have a B.A.) and barely grades student papers?
Maybe an elite private school that doesn't use T.A.s or adjuncts and makes teaching as important as scholarship. They're out there.
Otherwise, we all know the reason to go to an elite school is for the superior facilities, the superior peer group, and the prestige and contacts that are made.
Is anyone going to seriously argue that the teaching is better at elite schools? Really? We know better.
Stella, For the most part I'm with you. I went to a CC, transferred to a state university, went to grad school at an elite private university and have been tenure stream faculty in the UK, at an ivy, at a state school, and now at an elite private university in the East. And I would say that the level of instruction at all of those places was roughly equivalent. Yes, even at the CC. The classes there were pitched at a lower level than mine are today, but the professors I had there were, with a couple of exceptions, serious professionals who wanted their students to learn. And I learned a lot from them.
But there is one kind of institution I've never experienced directly: a SLAC. And that's where Tenured Radical teaches--at a famous, elite (maybe not quite at the level of the Williamses and Amhersts and Reeds, but pretty close) SLAC. If you look at her blog you'll figure it out pretty fast, as she isn't really hiding it--it is the subject of some good natured ribbing in a syndicated comic strip this week, if that helps.
I mention this because while I abhor the clubby, preapproved-for-success elitism of such schools, I do believe that she is probably right that students at Amherst, Reed and the like do have a very different classroom experience from the rest of the world. The classes are really small, and there are no graduate students at those institutions to act as intermediaries. So the students really do get something that you can't get at larger schools. That said, there are undoubtedly some duds among the faculty at all of those schools, but that doesn't change the fact that they provide something my university, for all its putative prestige, can't, and never will.
And it's anecdotal to be sure, but my very best graduate students have almost all come from good SLACS. I've had a couple of good ones from big state schools as well (and curiously all my Ivy-originating grad students have sucked hard), but the SLACS seem to churn out the most intellectually engaged ones. It might be a coincidence, but I've seen enough of a pattern to be wiling to bet that it ain't.
I'd add that another difference between SLACs and the place I teach is that the publication pressure is much more reasonable at the SLACs, and teaching counts a lot more. I've been an external referee on a couple of elite SLAC tenure cases, and the publication records those faculty had would not have cut it where I teach, but their classroom work far outstripped mine or any of my colleagues'. They sailed through, as they should have. Under those circumstances it actually is possible to have faculty giving it their all in the classroom instead of blowing it off so they can run home and churn out another article.
I don't think such schools are nirvanas, by the way. They have a lot problems. I just think Tenured Radical has a point.
Yes, you get guys like Bard College's Leon Botstein, who have been there 30 years and wield unlimited power in the hiring process, so the college resembles a Saxon fiefdom.
Yep, I have to agree about the SLACs. I taught at one, and the quality of teaching was light years ahead of where I am now. The undergrads worked at the level of beginning Ph.D. students. But it was almost impossible to get any research and publishing done, so there were some frustrated intellectuals there. Next up, I think, are the CCs, where I think the teaching is superb but the level necessarily lower because the students are less well-prepared. My best undergrads come in as transfers from the CCs; my best grads from the SLACs.
But the big Ivies? For the most part, undergrads get TAs and grad students and didn't do well in my grad program. The exceptions seem to be Princeton and Dartmouth, both incredibly undergrad-oriented. And U. Chicago (I know, I know, technically not an Ivy) seems to do quite well by its undergrads.
At the public R1 where I am now, teaching is just plain difficult, with huge classes and students prepared at about the 7th grade level. I'm about half as good a teacher as I was at the SLAC because I just can't reach everyone.
My undergrad and first adjuncting experiences were both at SLACs. The SLAC was what I aspired to when I decided I wanted to teach college. I feel very fortunate that I got a great education and was able to learn so much about teaching since the SLAC where I taught had an excellent mentoring program for adjuncts. My SLACs, however, were not "elite." They were both moderately selective with fairly high but still reasonable (for private school) price tags.
I don't buy for a minute that elite always equals the best education for every student. Some students thrive in larger classes and schools in which a wide variety of activities and sports keep them interested in staying. Some need programs with large research agendas to keep them interested in their fields. And some need community colleges because they need the extra support we provide. And that support does include smaller classes. The largest class anyone can take at my school will have no more than 35 students. For some majors, we run classes as small as 5. Our average class size is about 23.
Marcia, thanks for mentioning that our students tend to do very well when they transfer. At my college, our transfers to the nearby state schools overall tend to have higher GPAs than native 4-year students throughout the junior and senior years and also upon graduation.
Being in class with other smart, ambitious kids counts at least as much as any of the other factors, and can more than make up for plenty of bad teaching. Whenever I get a talented student from our university high school in my introductory physics for engineers class, it helps that class a LOT: it shows the dullards that what they do is NOT normal. Plutarch said it well: "The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be lighted."
75 is a medium-sized class where I teach. But on a 2-2 load I guess that's fair enough.
And since I didn't say it explicitly, a big thanks to CC teachers for sending over the best-prepared undergrads I get. If my kid goes to our public state system, I'd seriously consider her starting at a CC for the actual educational value, not just for the cheapness. I'd feel bad denying her the live-in experience (and am not sure I'd want her at home), but in terms of the smaller classes and dedicated teaching, I'd be happy. I suppose it's true that my dream would be a SLAC, though.
Having done undergrad at an SLAC nearby to TR - she can say whatever she wants. My peers at SLAC weren't any more motivated than the ones at the non-SLAC where I now teach. The classes were mostly small, but I had at least two that were over 50 students.
The answer is that the motivation of the students needs to be there. Just because a school is "elite" does not automatically mean that the students are. If we want to have truly elite schools with highly motivated students, then the schools need to look at work ethic as it relates to grades. I can safely say that I knew as many, if not more, drug addicts/drunks/general lazy shits among my peers at SLAC as I see every day in the classes I teach.
The knowledge development and the research effort are dead on. At my current employer, the teaching has its moments but the research is simply non-existent. This results in a stultifying atmosphere.
Why go to an elite college? "because somebody might actually be able to take the time to teach you there..."
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA HA HA! Seriously, we're supposed to believe that "elite" colleges teach better, when new hires are chosen and tenured mostly on the basis of the ability to publish? And when the prof has three teaching assistants (some of whom may only have a B.A.) and barely grades student papers?
Maybe an elite private school that doesn't use T.A.s or adjuncts and makes teaching as important as scholarship. They're out there.
Otherwise, we all know the reason to go to an elite school is for the superior facilities, the superior peer group, and the prestige and contacts that are made.
Is anyone going to seriously argue that the teaching is better at elite schools? Really? We know better.
Stella,
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I'm with you. I went to a CC, transferred to a state university, went to grad school at an elite private university and have been tenure stream faculty in the UK, at an ivy, at a state school, and now at an elite private university in the East. And I would say that the level of instruction at all of those places was roughly equivalent. Yes, even at the CC. The classes there were pitched at a lower level than mine are today, but the professors I had there were, with a couple of exceptions, serious professionals who wanted their students to learn. And I learned a lot from them.
But there is one kind of institution I've never experienced directly: a SLAC. And that's where Tenured Radical teaches--at a famous, elite (maybe not quite at the level of the Williamses and Amhersts and Reeds, but pretty close) SLAC. If you look at her blog you'll figure it out pretty fast, as she isn't really hiding it--it is the subject of some good natured ribbing in a syndicated comic strip this week, if that helps.
I mention this because while I abhor the clubby, preapproved-for-success elitism of such schools, I do believe that she is probably right that students at Amherst, Reed and the like do have a very different classroom experience from the rest of the world. The classes are really small, and there are no graduate students at those institutions to act as intermediaries. So the students really do get something that you can't get at larger schools. That said, there are undoubtedly some duds among the faculty at all of those schools, but that doesn't change the fact that they provide something my university, for all its putative prestige, can't, and never will.
And it's anecdotal to be sure, but my very best graduate students have almost all come from good SLACS. I've had a couple of good ones from big state schools as well (and curiously all my Ivy-originating grad students have sucked hard), but the SLACS seem to churn out the most intellectually engaged ones. It might be a coincidence, but I've seen enough of a pattern to be wiling to bet that it ain't.
I'd add that another difference between SLACs and the place I teach is that the publication pressure is much more reasonable at the SLACs, and teaching counts a lot more. I've been an external referee on a couple of elite SLAC tenure cases, and the publication records those faculty had would not have cut it where I teach, but their classroom work far outstripped mine or any of my colleagues'. They sailed through, as they should have. Under those circumstances it actually is possible to have faculty giving it their all in the classroom instead of blowing it off so they can run home and churn out another article.
ReplyDeleteI don't think such schools are nirvanas, by the way. They have a lot problems. I just think Tenured Radical has a point.
Yes, you get guys like Bard College's Leon Botstein, who have been there 30 years and wield unlimited power in the hiring process, so the college resembles a Saxon fiefdom.
ReplyDeleteYep, I have to agree about the SLACs. I taught at one, and the quality of teaching was light years ahead of where I am now. The undergrads worked at the level of beginning Ph.D. students. But it was almost impossible to get any research and publishing done, so there were some frustrated intellectuals there. Next up, I think, are the CCs, where I think the teaching is superb but the level necessarily lower because the students are less well-prepared. My best undergrads come in as transfers from the CCs; my best grads from the SLACs.
ReplyDeleteBut the big Ivies? For the most part, undergrads get TAs and grad students and didn't do well in my grad program. The exceptions seem to be Princeton and Dartmouth, both incredibly undergrad-oriented. And U. Chicago (I know, I know, technically not an Ivy) seems to do quite well by its undergrads.
At the public R1 where I am now, teaching is just plain difficult, with huge classes and students prepared at about the 7th grade level. I'm about half as good a teacher as I was at the SLAC because I just can't reach everyone.
My undergrad and first adjuncting experiences were both at SLACs. The SLAC was what I aspired to when I decided I wanted to teach college. I feel very fortunate that I got a great education and was able to learn so much about teaching since the SLAC where I taught had an excellent mentoring program for adjuncts. My SLACs, however, were not "elite." They were both moderately selective with fairly high but still reasonable (for private school) price tags.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy for a minute that elite always equals the best education for every student. Some students thrive in larger classes and schools in which a wide variety of activities and sports keep them interested in staying. Some need programs with large research agendas to keep them interested in their fields. And some need community colleges because they need the extra support we provide. And that support does include smaller classes. The largest class anyone can take at my school will have no more than 35 students. For some majors, we run classes as small as 5. Our average class size is about 23.
Marcia, thanks for mentioning that our students tend to do very well when they transfer. At my college, our transfers to the nearby state schools overall tend to have higher GPAs than native 4-year students throughout the junior and senior years and also upon graduation.
Being in class with other smart, ambitious kids counts at least as much as any of the other factors, and can more than make up for plenty of bad teaching. Whenever I get a talented student from our university high school in my introductory physics for engineers class, it helps that class a LOT: it shows the dullards that what they do is NOT normal. Plutarch said it well: "The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be lighted."
ReplyDeleteThe part where she talked about the 75 students...that. I thought "Oh, man, that would be freaking awesome."
ReplyDelete75 is a medium-sized class where I teach. But on a 2-2 load I guess that's fair enough.
ReplyDeleteAnd since I didn't say it explicitly, a big thanks to CC teachers for sending over the best-prepared undergrads I get. If my kid goes to our public state system, I'd seriously consider her starting at a CC for the actual educational value, not just for the cheapness. I'd feel bad denying her the live-in experience (and am not sure I'd want her at home), but in terms of the smaller classes and dedicated teaching, I'd be happy. I suppose it's true that my dream would be a SLAC, though.
We have classes with up to 500 students and the number seems to be growing each year.
ReplyDeleteHaving done undergrad at an SLAC nearby to TR - she can say whatever she wants. My peers at SLAC weren't any more motivated than the ones at the non-SLAC where I now teach. The classes were mostly small, but I had at least two that were over 50 students.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is that the motivation of the students needs to be there. Just because a school is "elite" does not automatically mean that the students are. If we want to have truly elite schools with highly motivated students, then the schools need to look at work ethic as it relates to grades. I can safely say that I knew as many, if not more, drug addicts/drunks/general lazy shits among my peers at SLAC as I see every day in the classes I teach.
The knowledge development and the research effort are dead on. At my current employer, the teaching has its moments but the research is simply non-existent. This results in a stultifying atmosphere.
ReplyDelete