References on this board to colleges that focus on "Undergraduate" programs. Versus what?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I'm struggling with something as we start our search. I've been seeing lots of references on these boards to how some schools focus on undergraduates and others that don't. Huh? Does that mean that there are literally colleges that HS Seniors apply to that do not focus on their education but are using their tuition to support graduate programs? How can one figure out the difference? (Yes, I tried to google this but can't figure this out).
Also, can anyone help with a list of those colleges that focus on undergraduates versus those that don't? TIA |
Anonymous
| Or point me to a good reference/article. |
Anonymous
|
Lots of research universities hire professors based on the quality of their research and the amount of grant funding they can potentially bring to the university. They may teach one undergraduate course (more likely to teach graduate level courses) each semester but teaching is secondary to research. These schools sometimes have professors whose only job is to teach larger introductory type classes but they are likely nearing retirement or are only on appointments that last for a limited time.
Other schools are more focused on building their reputations as having professors who are great teachers who will interact directly with undergraduates often providing even more education. There are a handful of schools that try to balance these attributes. |
Anonymous
|
Vs. grad level research.
A lot of small schools focus on undergrad teaching (bc many don't offer grad programs). Most big schools - State Us and private Unis focus on undergrad teaching |
Anonymous
|
As a way to wade into this topic, you can start with US News which has a list (of course they do).
Based on survey of college administrators. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching |
Anonymous
|
A bit out Of date, but shows what data is out there.
https://mup.asu.edu/sites/default/files/mup-pdf/MUP-2013-Top-American-Research-Universities-Annual-Report.pdf |
Anonymous
This is a good summation, with the added idea that the research universities employ their graduate students to teach many of the entry-level undergraduate courses, preparing them for academic careers while freeing up the senior faculty to work with grad students and conduct their research. For schools with no/few grad students, undergrads sometimes get the opportunities to work closely with faculty that are reserved for grad students at schools that aren't "undergraduate-focused." |
Anonymous
This definitely varies. In CA, the public university system was set up in a way that makes this focus clear. UCs are focused on graduate education and research. Cal States are focused on undergraduate education. Some people think if you want undergraduate exposure to research you should go to a big schools that do a lot of research but the thing is a lot of that research is reserved for grad students. And those grad students are likely the ones teaching your classes, rather than the professors. You may have more opportunities to participate in research at that undergrad focused school and develop closer relationships with professors. |
Anonymous
UMBC is #13 on this list |
Anonymous
|
"Also, can anyone help with a list of those colleges that focus on undergraduates versus those that don't?"
Undergrad Focus: All LACs Princeton Rice Brown Dartmouth William and Mary Wake Forest Tufts Not very undergrad focused: UC System Caltech Johns Hopkins Columbia NYU USC |
Anonymous
Add Harvard to the not undergrad focused. |
Anonymous
I'll just add this here: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching |
Anonymous
My recollection from Princeton was that professors taught all the large classes and most of the smaller ones, but grad students might teach a "precept" (the weekly seminars with a smaller group of students enrolled in an large 101 course) or some of the introductory classes that only met in small groups. The saving grace was that most of the grad students were good teachers. I remember one grad student who taught my precept in Philosophy 101. He returned my last paper graded A-, with a note that said "you'd make a great philosopher if you thought a bit harder." I didn't really want to, but his comment pretty much summed it up. |
Anonymous
|
Having taught at Hopkins and been an undergrad at Harvard, I think that the claim that faculty don’t care about undergrads at these schools is BS. At both schools, there are some profs who are excellent teachers and while advanced grad students lead small group discussion sections at both, they don’t teach intro classes. Actually, I had the same role as a first year grad student at “undergrad-focused” Princeton as (and in my second and third years had an even larger role than) any of my Harvard or Hopkins TAs. FWIW, all three schools grant tenure based primarily on research accomplishments.
The basic problem with college level instruction is that PhDs aren’t taught how to teach. So whether a prof is a good teacher is pretty much a function of individual talent or interest. The mere absence of grad students hardly makes someone a better undergrad teacher. And institutional incentives for good teaching typically involve popularity rather than any attempt at objective or expert assessment of the quality of instruction. And, having been on, and watched peers navigate) the academic job market, there was little or no thought among candidates about whether various jobs valued undergrad teaching or not. You looked for a good school, with a reasonable teaching load, in an area you wouldn’t mind living and where your partner was employable (or you thought you might meet a future partner). It wasn't a process that funneled the good teachers to some schools and the good researchers to others. At any rate, I think this distinction is a marketing ploy/branding strategy rather than an accurate reflection of reality on the ground, at least among well-funded private universities. |