The rigor of LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a few LACs known for their intense rigor such as Harvey Mudd, Reed, and Swarthmore, but really how much more rigorous is Swarthmore to Amherst or Harvey Mudd math to Pomona Math? Obviously, there are big differences between these hard schools and the non-rigorous top lacs like Pomona, Amherst, and Bowdoin, but do you think there are some LACs that are underrated for their rigor and intensity?

All of top 15-20 or so LACs are academically rigorous as in high standards and a lot of work. Do you mean something else like cutthroat or competitive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Absolutely, I did grad school at UCB. People hate me on DCUM because I tell them what the undergraduate experience at UCB actually is as opposed to what they desperately want it to be. Go to a SLAC for undergrad if you aren't going for engineering or CS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few LACs known for their intense rigor such as Harvey Mudd, Reed, and Swarthmore, but really how much more rigorous is Swarthmore to Amherst or Harvey Mudd math to Pomona Math? Obviously, there are big differences between these hard schools and the non-rigorous top lacs like Pomona, Amherst, and Bowdoin, but do you think there are some LACs that are underrated for their rigor and intensity?

All of top 15-20 or so LACs are academically rigorous as in high standards and a lot of work. Do you mean something else like cutthroat or competitive?

The OP was a Troll trying to create trouble. Pay no attention to the origin post.

[Anonymous]

the same way brown with it’s open curriculum is less of a grind than a Cornell CS degree - to compare two “peer” colleges - Vassar, Amherst, and Wesleyan also incorporate an open curriculum which makes them mostly less of a grind than a SWAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the same way brown with it’s open curriculum is less of a grind than a Cornell CS degree - to compare two “peer” colleges - Vassar, Amherst, and Wesleyan also incorporate an open curriculum which makes them mostly less of a grind than a SWAT

SWAT? what could that possibly stand for and doesn't Amherst fit in the A?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Exactly my point, that's why its better to do undergraduate research at a SLAC where you'd get more attention than a large univ. And yes, I'm intimately familiar with medical research where we have (at least) weekly meetings

No I'm not following. It's up to a professor to have the time to conduct various meetings with undergrads. A professor with funding, emphasis on research, and less time on service and teaching will be a better research mentor. I went to an LAC. I loved the experience, but the research opportunities and experiences are much better for undergrads at my current public R1 institution than I could've imagined at my LAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Exactly my point, that's why its better to do undergraduate research at a SLAC where you'd get more attention than a large univ. And yes, I'm intimately familiar with medical research where we have (at least) weekly meetings

No I'm not following. It's up to a professor to have the time to conduct various meetings with undergrads. A professor with funding, emphasis on research, and less time on service and teaching will be a better research mentor. I went to an LAC. I loved the experience, but the research opportunities and experiences are much better for undergrads at my current public R1 institution than I could've imagined at my LAC.

Everyone discusses research in this forum, but when it comes to job prospects, they all aspire to end up in high-paying sectors. So, is research that important?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Exactly my point, that's why its better to do undergraduate research at a SLAC where you'd get more attention than a large univ. And yes, I'm intimately familiar with medical research where we have (at least) weekly meetings

No I'm not following. It's up to a professor to have the time to conduct various meetings with undergrads. A professor with funding, emphasis on research, and less time on service and teaching will be a better research mentor. I went to an LAC. I loved the experience, but the research opportunities and experiences are much better for undergrads at my current public R1 institution than I could've imagined at my LAC.

Everyone discusses research in this forum, but when it comes to job prospects, they all aspire to end up in high-paying sectors. So, is research that important?

Many highly paid positions are gatekept by higher education, some involving PhDs. It can also be difficult to build experience, which research is easier to get into and allows you to develop those skills with a mentor. Even for CS, the guys with the PhDs who go into research divisions make an awesome salary.

You can’t go into my field (Biostatistics) without a masters and the good positions start with a PhD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Exactly my point, that's why its better to do undergraduate research at a SLAC where you'd get more attention than a large univ. And yes, I'm intimately familiar with medical research where we have (at least) weekly meetings

No I'm not following. It's up to a professor to have the time to conduct various meetings with undergrads. A professor with funding, emphasis on research, and less time on service and teaching will be a better research mentor. I went to an LAC. I loved the experience, but the research opportunities and experiences are much better for undergrads at my current public R1 institution than I could've imagined at my LAC.

The PIs at LACs are more undergraduate focused for obvious reasons. Also, unlike R1 univ, they are more focused on undergrad education in general. At an R1 you obviously have more breadth of research but for an undergrad that generally is not what's important. More important to have access to professors who care about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Exactly my point, that's why its better to do undergraduate research at a SLAC where you'd get more attention than a large univ. And yes, I'm intimately familiar with medical research where we have (at least) weekly meetings

No I'm not following. It's up to a professor to have the time to conduct various meetings with undergrads. A professor with funding, emphasis on research, and less time on service and teaching will be a better research mentor. I went to an LAC. I loved the experience, but the research opportunities and experiences are much better for undergrads at my current public R1 institution than I could've imagined at my LAC.

Everyone discusses research in this forum, but when it comes to job prospects, they all aspire to end up in high-paying sectors. So, is research that important?

Many highly paid positions are gatekept by higher education, some involving PhDs. It can also be difficult to build experience, which research is easier to get into and allows you to develop those skills with a mentor. Even for CS, the guys with the PhDs who go into research divisions make an awesome salary.

You can’t go into my field (Biostatistics) without a masters and the good positions start with a PhD.

Nice answer. But, how are REUs perceived when a student seeks an industry internship or job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Exactly my point, that's why its better to do undergraduate research at a SLAC where you'd get more attention than a large univ. And yes, I'm intimately familiar with medical research where we have (at least) weekly meetings

No I'm not following. It's up to a professor to have the time to conduct various meetings with undergrads. A professor with funding, emphasis on research, and less time on service and teaching will be a better research mentor. I went to an LAC. I loved the experience, but the research opportunities and experiences are much better for undergrads at my current public R1 institution than I could've imagined at my LAC.

Everyone discusses research in this forum, but when it comes to job prospects, they all aspire to end up in high-paying sectors. So, is research that important?

Many highly paid positions are gatekept by higher education, some involving PhDs. It can also be difficult to build experience, which research is easier to get into and allows you to develop those skills with a mentor. Even for CS, the guys with the PhDs who go into research divisions make an awesome salary.

You can’t go into my field (Biostatistics) without a masters and the good positions start with a PhD.

Nice answer. But, how are REUs perceived when a student seeks an industry internship or job?

Well. You just tailor what you did into resume talk like every other position. The way you write a CV isn’t like how you write a resume, but research is still a great way to get an internship. Also, research and internship aren’t completely antithetical. Many corporations have research and development teams and some industries (pharma/biotech/most tech jobs) are based off of research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Exactly my point, that's why its better to do undergraduate research at a SLAC where you'd get more attention than a large univ. And yes, I'm intimately familiar with medical research where we have (at least) weekly meetings

No I'm not following. It's up to a professor to have the time to conduct various meetings with undergrads. A professor with funding, emphasis on research, and less time on service and teaching will be a better research mentor. I went to an LAC. I loved the experience, but the research opportunities and experiences are much better for undergrads at my current public R1 institution than I could've imagined at my LAC.

The PIs at LACs are more undergraduate focused for obvious reasons. Also, unlike R1 univ, they are more focused on undergrad education in general. At an R1 you obviously have more breadth of research but for an undergrad that generally is not what's important. More important to have access to professors who care about you.

A professor willing to work with you will put the time into doing so. You understand R1 profs don’t have to accept undergrads into their labs right? Having breadth of research is important because A) you don’t have to do an REU just to do the research you want and B) you should have some idea as to what your field is like if you are interested in grad school. I’m not sure if you’re just recalling your own personal poor experience with a professor or what, but these don’t really make sense in the context of a quality research institution compared to a good lac. It’s a bit obscene to act as if every Research university has cruel researchers who hate undergrads (but accept them into their labs) and give no support. I’ll also mention that if you’re interested in the humanities, it will be helpful to have access to institutes and research in your area. Many LAC humanities profs don’t really work with students; particularly if they’re writing books, they often prefer working alone and contacting peers for advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very few LACs are anywhere near the rigor of top engineering universities. That's what happens when your school is mostly "soft" subjects.

Source?

[Anonymous]

What I love about these threads on DCUM is that they’re always populated with people who went to crappy schools pontificating about schools they could never have attended. But they have so much emotion tied up in all of it because what they want for their kids. It’s absolutely twisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I love about these threads on DCUM is that they’re always populated with people who went to crappy schools pontificating about schools they could never have attended. But they have so much emotion tied up in all of it because what they want for their kids. It’s absolutely twisted.

Many people here do come from good backgrounds, they just are myopic and disavow anyone who isn’t exactly like them.