I was responding to the article PP cited which was specifically about Harvard using undergrads *AS* TAs -- a practice I think it borrowed from SLACs. It seemed bizarre to me that this was cited as an example of Harvard having very little concern for undergrads when I'd previously heard the same practice cited as an example of the high regard in which SLACs hold their undergrads. In both cases, it sounds like undergrads aren't doing much teaching. Separate question: What do you see as the key differences between the tutors, research associates, and writing associates you encountered at Swarthmore and the grad student section leaders, preceptors, etc at research universities? Did the non-professors who were involved in teaching at Swartmore all have PhDs? Or was their use limited to certain Intro courses? Was all grading done by Profs? |
The tutors, research and writing associates were all fellow undergraduates that received additional training to help other students with writing, research, etc. You went to them *voluntarily* if you wanted a fresh set of eyes to look over your work. Of course, you could also always get your prof to look over drafts, but that assumed that you wrote your draft well in advance, whereas the WAs could look at your papers the night before they were due. In foreign language classes, you sometimes had instructors (PhD students from nearby universities) for drill sections, but not for the actual class. All grading was done by professors. At a SLAC you really don't have the graduate student population for TAs. Virtually all the teaching was done by the professor of record. BTW, as a PhD student at a research university, I was the primary instructor for undergraduates and developed my own syllabi. When I would TA, I was responsible for grading undergraduate work, which was signed off by the professor of record. |
Where are you getting your 25 or fewer statistic? I ask only because my SLAC boasted an average class size of under 20 when I went there, but most of the classes were more than that because they included in "classes" thesis students, independent studies, music lessons for credit, etc., which meant there were dozens of classes of one each year to pull down the average. It was still a great experience, but I was surprised by this when I arrived. |
You cn check out a schools common data set and see the average class information. It provides a wealth of information. |
Which makes no sense at all because the title of the thread is "SLACS - good, bad and the ugly". Harvard University and Cal State Fullerton are both large universities, so PPs comments make no sense in this thread at all. |
OP's question was a comparison based on cost rather than size -- i.e. Is it worth paying for a SLAC when you could go to a state school? so CSUF made sense; Harvard didn't. Swarthmore would have sense (replacing Harvard) since the point the respondent was making is that there's no categorical answer -- it depends on the comparative quality of the specific state school and the specific SLAC. |
Agree. I went to a SLAC with 1800 students and a low average class size. Yet most of my freshman year intro classes were 100+ (intro to psych, intro to poli Sci, etc.). By contrast my DC goes to a big state school and passed out of those intro classes with AP credits so took upper level psych and gov classes as a freshman that were much smaller than mine. |