Reply to The rigor of LACs

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "The rigor of LACs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]
They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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

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

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

Having breadth of research is much more important for graduate students than undergrads the vast majority of whom have (understandably) less narrowly defined research interests.[/quote]

That's exactly why a breadth of research experience can be helpful in helping an undergrad learn which niches they find more or less interesting.[/quote]

The motivation for an undergrad to do research is very different from a grad student or post doc.[/quote]
In what way? The distance between an undergrad and grad student is a few years.[/quote]

In general, undergrads are looking to learn research techniques and methodologies. They may have a general broad interest in a particular area and may want to use their research experience to help get into grad school, for recommendation, publish paper, etc. Their research may not be original (lit search). Grad students already have a bachelors or masters and have narrowed down a subject area. They are looking to do original research, publish papers and get a doctorate working directly under a particular PI. Why would you think they are so similar?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics