Anonymous wrote:If you have direct experience (you are/were a student, professor, parent of a student) with a top 25 national university or SLAC liberal arts program, how does the education materially differ from a run-of-the-mill college experience? I’m not talking about the school’s “network,” but the education itself. For example, how will the “product” of an English major educated at Princeton or Williams be different from that of a student at a US News 50-200 school. Put another way, if students at these different programs read the same books, how will their educations be different at the end of four years?
Anonymous wrote:They take 4 classes a semester instead of 5 so 8 less classes to graduate.
Anonymous wrote:I agree: Peer group. To use your example: the students may read the same books, but the class discussions are likely to be very different. One thing that stands out to me is the large number of students and professors who are genuinely excited about their work. They do extra stuff — just because it’s fun. There may also be lots of students deeply interested in multiple things.
When I was in college, I briefly chatted with a cute guy on the football team. I later found out that he was not only the Captain of the team, he was a future Rhodes Scholar. Pre- Med students doing independent research and developing community based resources in their free time. English majors who are also writing operas. So the intellectual curiosity that the students are bringing to the discussions in and out of class is pretty heady.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Professor quality" will be equally great at top-notch and good schools and even the ones considered not so great. The job market for academics is terrible (especially in the humanities) so just ok schools can recruit the best and the brightest. I teach at GW and literally all my colleagues (myself included) got our PhDs at top universities and are very well regarded in our fields. So from that point of view the education your child will get is exactly the same as at Yale etc.
I think it is true that the peer group at top tier schools will be stronger.
+1 I'm a professor at UMD. I previously taught at Hopkins. No measurable different in colleagues or "professor quality." In general I agree about peer group. However, there are many smart kids at UMD that would do well at Hopkins.
Anonymous wrote:"Professor quality" will be equally great at top-notch and good schools and even the ones considered not so great. The job market for academics is terrible (especially in the humanities) so just ok schools can recruit the best and the brightest. I teach at GW and literally all my colleagues (myself included) got our PhDs at top universities and are very well regarded in our fields. So from that point of view the education your child will get is exactly the same as at Yale etc.
I think it is true that the peer group at top tier schools will be stronger.