Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Some might find this info helpful, but if not just ignore.

I did quite a bit of due diligence on things that I valued as kids were getting close to college.

1. College outcomes. How did the students fare for that particular major in that particular college. What sort of support was provided by college? Did the students get them through alumni, campus visits, etc.

2. Rigor in core classes: compared course rigor and especially the scoring. You can learn a lot by comparing how a similar course is graded at different universities. It tells you what level the college is expecting the students to be at and what base level knowledge they are assuming.

3. Class sizes and ease of getting the courses especially major related. Ability to take advanced courses.

Even after I gathered this information I was surprised by some of the information that was shared by the professors. When a professor in a college says avoid this particular major in this college and gives the reasons, I am just going to avoid them.

To give an example: Test optional had an impact but they are not 100% sure if that is because of test optional or due to Covid era loss, but now it is impacting how courses are taught and the problems it is creating at that university. They point out that their colleagues at university x & y are seeing it as well, but z seems to be not having that problem.

This is over the top controlling and/or trying to control outcomes.

And then you come back and post that my child is not able to find a job, please help.

Pick colleges based on vibe and ignore the important things. It is because of people like you we have "Americans no longer see 4-year college degrees as worth the cost". LOL

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professor too. You are somewhat accurate in what you describe but so much of that is irrelevant or without context. Scheduling classes two days per week? You realize teaching is contractually about 40-50% of the job, right? When are they supposed to do their other work? Answering questions on a phone? That's Kahoot. It's fun and not bad at all. AI, budget cuts, that's across the board. Unavoidable.

Chill.

These were my thoughts, exactly. The teaching schedule thing has been happening for 30 years (or more). I think the OP's objection is that faculty aren't in their offices available to students every day. But that's never been unusual for a tenure track faculty member. And honestly, the vast majority of designated office hours are completely unused, so even when faculty are in their offices and encouraging students to attend, they don't. So how many days per week that occurs isn't very important. My colleagues who prefer to work in the office 5 days per week probably don't spend any more hours with individual student contact than my colleagues who prefer to work at home three days per week (everything else equal).

The phone thing is intended to INCREASE engagement in a class. In an old fashioned class, a prof asks a question, 3 or 4 students raise their hands, and 1 is selected to answer. When faculty use Kahoot or other similar software, every single student is expected to answer, and the prof can see if students are answering the material (i.e., if they should speed up or if they should go over something again).

Finally, if the point of the post is to say that faculty (teachers) are more engaged in the student experience at some universities than others, then that's absolutely true and has always been true. Small liberal arts colleges have a culture for smaller classes, more faculty accessibility, and a more nurturing student-faculty experience overall. Not all of them. But you're more likely to find that experience at such schools. Faculty are hired, evaluated, and rewarded proportionally more on their teaching (rather than scholarship). There's also more of a culture of going above and beyond for students (bringing cookies during finals or whatnot). The more highly ranked "research universities" are typically structured so that a professor's performance is assessed as approximately 30% teaching (the rest goes to scholarship and/or administrative work). And in that setup, you can expect faculty to look for ways to do the teaching portion more efficiently. They are not worse in the classroom (faculty are still evaluated on teaching and there are still norms to do a good job in the teaching domain). But faculty are more likely to prioritize finding blocks of time for their research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professor too. You are somewhat accurate in what you describe but so much of that is irrelevant or without context. Scheduling classes two days per week? You realize teaching is contractually about 40-50% of the job, right? When are they supposed to do their other work? Answering questions on a phone? That's Kahoot. It's fun and not bad at all. AI, budget cuts, that's across the board. Unavoidable.

Chill.

Kahoot is fun, but it's a middle school and non-honors high school thing. There's a reason why you won't find Kahoot at HYPSM or even Phillips academy.

Before Kahoot, you had to buy an iClicker to use in large classes. I'm guessing the people commenting here when to smaller colleges and don't know this. This video is from 8 years ago.

I'm not saying the facts aren't valid but some is in your control;

1. College outcomes. How did the students fare for that particular major in that particular college. What sort of support was provided by college? Did the students get them through alumni, campus visits, etc.

The outcome is a measure of the kid - up to the point of graduation the kid has had their world organized for them. A kid that knows how to apply for jobs from a Community College will fare better than a HYPSM waiting for an offer on their senior year. Internships and Co-Ops are way better than any campus visits. Campus visits are where I can gram 100 resumes, interview 5, and hire 1.

2. Rigor in core classes: compared course rigor and especially the scoring. You can learn a lot by comparing how a similar course is graded at different universities. It tells you what level the college is expecting the students to be at and what base level knowledge they are assuming.

Never understood why "scoring" is same as "rigor". Rigor to me is how well the kid understood the subject, that depends on the student and the teacher. An large school will allow a kid to slide by with a passing score and low understanding. In a SLAC the prof will likely catch on that the kid is not getting it. This is really hard to measure. I can only find these from: Employer surveys and post graduation Alumni surveys. But don't go by really hard grading where a point is deducted because the kid forgot a period. This type of grading is non-sense and dominates DMV HSs.

3. Class sizes and ease of getting the courses especially major related. Ability to take advanced courses.

Here you have a point but it's based on the kid. Does the kid want to "hide" so the prof doesn't call on him? or be engaged? There are smart kids that feel more comfortable in the shadows and score really high. From one of Gladwell's books where he talks about big HSs vs small ones.

Even after I gathered this information I was surprised by some of the information that was shared by the professors. When a professor in a college says avoid this particular major in this college and gives the reasons, I am just going to avoid them.

I would as well;

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We met with a family member who is a professor at a university (~T100 range) over the Thanksgiving break. We also got to meet with a few other professors who were friends of the family member.

We are quite shocked by what we heard about some of the changes taking place over the last couple of years. This is especially evident in specific majors and the combination of AI use by students, administrative overhead on professors, composition of student body and recent cuts have dramatically impacted these majors. It is just such a sad situation. Professors who were totally checked out - some schedule classes on two back to back days so they are pretty free 5 days a week, giving up on tests, professors project questions on a screen and students select answers on their phones, etc. What got us even more concerned is that the professors were positive that a significant portion of these students in these majors would not be employed and they seem powerless to help. They have already given up.

We dropped several schools from consideration based on the data we were able to gather. This is not across the board, many of these schools have majors where this is not an issue.

Do your due diligence.

What "data" are you referring to? You talked to a handful of people. What, exactly, is your concern? You didn't collect any "data."

Faculty have always had teaching loads that only involved teaching on a couple of days. That's not new.

AI is newish. But it's not going to replace jobs. People who can work with AI are going to replace jobs. If you're concerned about AI, college and university education will be even MORE important in the future than it is now because employers are going to be placing premiums on critical thinking. The best majors are going to be liberal arts, not STEM.

Tests are moving back to blue book.

I also don't understand what you mean by "we dropped several schools from consideration." What is this "we" shit. Are you the applicant? Or are you some parent who is overly invested?

I have a recent college graduate fully employed in Manhattan and progressing steadily in her career. I have another who is a junior and working hard and thriving. None of what you describe aligns with their experiences.

So, what, exactly, are you prattling on about? I can't even tell from your post what your concerns are.

You should have been spanked more as a child.

professors project questions on a screen and students select answers on their phones, etc.

There are a bunch of apps that facilitate this. It's not some horrible thing. I've been at conferences where they do this to poll the room. It's cool!

This reads like OP is just posting to themselves over and over in different persona.

So …newish here…things I’m taking away, hope they are right…
Look for a university where students will be taught by professors with teaching skill and the right incentives to teach well. In at least part this means neither pressure to focus on research nor diminished need to teach well because of research focus.
Being in large classes with grad students as teachers can be a sign your student won’t get their moneys worth out of a class/major/university.
This suggests that a smaller university/LAC with focus on the majoring department a good way to avoid that.
Taking an underresourced major is a bad idea.
It would be great to have an insider tell you if a particular department is bad. It seems hard to find this but some people get lucky, e.g., by having professor uncles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professor too. You are somewhat accurate in what you describe but so much of that is irrelevant or without context. Scheduling classes two days per week? You realize teaching is contractually about 40-50% of the job, right? When are they supposed to do their other work? Answering questions on a phone? That's Kahoot. It's fun and not bad at all. AI, budget cuts, that's across the board. Unavoidable.

Chill.

Kahoot is fun, but it's a middle school and non-honors high school thing. There's a reason why you won't find Kahoot at HYPSM or even Phillips academy.

Meh, we had clickers back when I was at Princeton. It was just to gauge knowledge gaps efficiently for a professor who was teaching a relatively large course. Sometimes basic things do work- we don't always have to turn our noses up to something efficient and successful.

iClicker is used in at least one of DC's classes. It does exactly what you say and is a helpful tool for attendance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only believing this if you list the unis and colleges ...

+1

My kids are working hard writing papers, taking exams/quizzes, doing labs, etc. My DD is a poly sci major and writes ALL THE TIME. My DS is a biochem major and is ALWAYS STUDYING.

Yep. Same here. I'm also laughing about the pearl clutching over the use of Kahoot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professor too. You are somewhat accurate in what you describe but so much of that is irrelevant or without context. Scheduling classes two days per week? You realize teaching is contractually about 40-50% of the job, right? When are they supposed to do their other work? Answering questions on a phone? That's Kahoot. It's fun and not bad at all. AI, budget cuts, that's across the board. Unavoidable.

Chill.

Kahoot is fun, but it's a middle school and non-honors high school thing. There's a reason why you won't find Kahoot at HYPSM or even Phillips academy.

Meh, we had clickers back when I was at Princeton. It was just to gauge knowledge gaps efficiently for a professor who was teaching a relatively large course. Sometimes basic things do work- we don't always have to turn our noses up to something efficient and successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

Who is getting denied tenure at a lac? Even at the top ones, you just need to play nice, grade with some inflation or the student evaluations, and publish a few articles or a book and you’re fine. It’s not very difficult. Unless you go to a campus with a hard ass chair who has institutional support to clamp hard on grades, you just inflate and give the students what they want within reason.

So SLAC profs aren't distinguished by their teaching prowess but by their grading generosity?

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professor too. You are somewhat accurate in what you describe but so much of that is irrelevant or without context. Scheduling classes two days per week? You realize teaching is contractually about 40-50% of the job, right? When are they supposed to do their other work? Answering questions on a phone? That's Kahoot. It's fun and not bad at all. AI, budget cuts, that's across the board. Unavoidable.

Chill.

Kahoot is fun, but it's a middle school and non-honors high school thing. There's a reason why you won't find Kahoot at HYPSM or even Phillips academy.

OP is the worst type of person: the one who thinks they're much smarter than they really are.

Take it from an actual scientist, OP. Your "research" is for naught. Your sources are purely anecdotal data. There is nothing there.
It's all word of mouth and conjecture.

I really hope your kids are smarter than you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

my value is in informing the parents that 1) faculty at research universities are not incentivized to teach undergraduates, but rather to publish research. Good teaching at these well-known schools is by accident, not by design; 2) SLACs are where you will find faculty incentivized for strong undergraduate teaching;

I am not a professor but really disagree with this. It's so hard to get a job in academia now--and has been for some time--that there simply isn't a pool of applicants who ONLY apply for jobs with LACs because they are primarily interested in teaching and another that only applies for jobs in universities because they want to research. Everyone in a field applies to any opening they know about and takes any job offered. Junior faculty--even at LACs--aren't guaranteed tenure. Thus, they HAVE to keep researching and publishing in case it becomes necessary to look for another job. Junior faculty at research universities need to get good evaluations for teaching in case they do not get tenure and need to apply elsewhere.

And, of course, this doesn't include adjuncts and/or visiting professors.

I'm not saying there is NO difference in what the institution incentivizes --just that, as a practical matter there's much less of a divide than you might expect.

Who is getting denied tenure at a lac? Even at the top ones, you just need to play nice, grade with some inflation or the student evaluations, and publish a few articles or a book and you’re fine. It’s not very difficult. Unless you go to a campus with a hard ass chair who has institutional support to clamp hard on grades, you just inflate and give the students what they want within reason.

I know I sound like a cynic, but I dead that the reality is our students don’t care that much about a liberal arts education; they just need an A for their consulting application or, heaven forbid, grad apps.

I'm a professor, and this post is a good example of how much people claim to know about my occupation and my industry from the outside, just because they've been in contact with it. Having shopped for food doesn't make me an expert in supply-chain logistics, and having had a tonsillectomy doesn't mean I understand how the medical profession operates. It's hard for me to understand why others believe they know my job better than I do.

Ah, my favorite academic: the one who thinks they're the only ones who has expertise, can speak, and have qualifications on a topic. I have been in the game longer than you. Active listening clearly isn't a skill taught for undergrads anymore.

No, I'd be quite willing to take advice and opinions on tenure mechanisms and standards from a fellow professor who has traversed the system, or better, a chair or a dean (and yes, before you ask, I do myself evaluate for tenure). My point is that there is a great deal of pontificating about the professoriate on this board that does not actually come from professors. Most of this (often incorrect) assessment is also ventured with great authority, which continues to mystify me. I wouldn't go on and on here about how attorneys are evaluated at law firms, or what the promotion standards are for IT professionals. So why does everyone seem to think they know exactly how academia works?