Reply to What makes an LAC "good"

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "What makes an LAC "good""

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]Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them. [/quote]

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.[/quote]

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor. [/quote]
Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor[/quote]

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

[b]For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors[/b] and grad school matriculation rates. [/quote]
What a bunch of bs.[/quote]

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.  [/quote]
If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.[/quote]

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM. [/quote]
You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.[/quote]

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree. [/quote]
You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.[/quote]

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so. [/quote]

History major from HYPSM and it was a well known hack to not do all the reading. So much was assigned that it wasn't humanly possible. You had to figure out what was enough. I did, and I got As.

This was decades ago, so maybe it's different now.

[/quote]
It’s still like that. Skimming for content is a real skill that most employed people need. [/quote]

Yes, I still use this skill today! [/quote]

Doing the assigned reading isn’t  precluding learning to skim supporting or reference materials or a prior book. But, anyway, skimming isn’t really the best indicator of humanities “rigor.” The equivalent in STEM is something like browsing through pictures to get some idea about a topic, and stopping there. Is it a useful skill? Sure, basic diagram interpretation, much like skimming, is usually embedded in middle and high school curriculums, but there’s a mountain of expected skill beyond that.

It’s a bit ironic to see these forum
responses defending partial reading or doing just enough to get the grade in a (sub)discussion that started on rigor. Skimming and not reading deeply are repeatedly cited as part of the learning problem in the eyes of the subject matter experts at these universities:

“Joseph Howley, the (Columbia) program’s chair, said he’d rather students miss out on some of the classics—Crime and Punishment is now off the list—but read the remaining texts in greater depth. And, crucially, the change will give professors more time to teach students how they expect them to read.“

And per a different Columbia prof:

“High-achieving students at exclusive schools like Columbia can decode words and sentences. But they struggle to muster the attention or ambition required to immerse themselves in a substantial text.”

The author also interviewed a neuroscientist who specializes in reading to discuss the limitations of skimming:

“ According to the neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf, so-called deep reading—sustained immersion in a text—stimulates a number of valuable mental habits, including critical thinking and self-reflection, in ways that skimming or reading in short bursts does not.”

All of this is orthogonal to the  importance of humanities, arts, and social sciences exposure, which even STEM-dedicated schools appreciate. Nor does it suggest there are no HASS students who actually do what they're assigned, and beyond. Those valiant souls deserve extra kudos for bucking prevailing trends and committing themselves to rigorous study for reasons beyond "getting the grade." They tend to gravitate towards schools known as PhD feeders, but not exclusively. [/quote]
This is a lot of yap, but it’s outright wrong. The type of careers that humanities students go into require reading intensely, quickly, and communicating the most important elements. The rigor comes in trying to get something intelligible out of Derrida or Ishmael Reed or Talal asad and then getting into the classroom where you’re debating, discussing, and learning with professors and students on the subject matter.

And I say all of that as a hard science major grad, who adored the humanities. [/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