JTO925

I'm not bothering with Ivies, a degree is a degree and although I'd like to go to a prestigious college, I'd rather not be in debt for the rest of my life. So the decision is pretty easy to me. Colleges aren't getting any cheaper so no point in going to these expensive schools.

l]

sally305

@Hunt: You are correct. Research/publications = tenure. Being a well-loved instructor of undergrads is not rewarded in most institutions that confer masters' and doctoral degrees. This is why I am such a big fan of LACs. I am not paying for a name on a piece of paper. I am paying for, and my son is investing four critical years in, an education. And to me that means NOT spending most of his time in the back of large lecture halls where he has almost no contact with his professors and is not fully engaged in his learning.

My son and I toured numerous colleges during his search, and interactive discussion-based class formats were emphasized at all the LACs. Sure, even small colleges may have a few "big" classes for introductory subjects. But "big" is relative-- at a state flagship or large private university a big class might have 400 students, whereas at a small LAC it might be 60 or 70. And when classes also hold discussion sections, it is the professor who is leading them--there are no TAs.

I believe the focus on undergraduate teaching is why the LACs tend to do better than public and private research universities on the National Survey of Student Engagement. Can students get a good undergraduate education at a major research university? Of course. For my kids, however, I would rather focus on the things I believe will help them get the most out of their college years, and I feel confident that a smaller college with smaller classes and more personal attention and interaction with peers and professors is the way to do that.

annasdad

Hunt, I think it's safe to say that there's no serious debate among educational researchers that active learning is superior to passive learning. An active and engaged learner learns more.

It also makes intuitive sense. Think back to your own experiences. You've certainly had situations in which you needed to actively investigate something, to dig into the details, to solve a problem. Do you know more about that subject than you do about those where you only heard a lecture or read a book?

And since lectures are, by definition, passive learning, no, they are not the best way to teach.

I am well aware that even in small classes, many professors simply lecture - because that's all they know how to do.

Three tips from The Thinking Student's Guide to College: 75 Tips for Getting a Better Education by Andrew Roberts

(As an aside, many college students prefer lectures, because they're a lot less work for the student. In an ideal active-learning scenario, the student would be expected to prepare beforehand, and the classroom time would be spent with the students and the professor working through that material, with the students expected to be (and assessed on being) active participants. Much easier, many students think, to simply sit in class, take some notes, and maybe read the material the week before the exam._)

So no, you can't simply look at the percentage of small classes and from that determine that there is active learning going on. But you can conclude that when you see classes of 50 and up (I'd actually say 30 and up), that it's unlikely there's much active learning happening in the classroom; and that when there is a preponderance of small classes, there is at least the possibility of active learning taking place.

Hunt

Hmm. I'm not entirely convinced. I think a lot depends on the skill of the teacher. I can still remember some of the lectures I heard 30 years ago--from gifted lecturers. In law school, the learning was much more active, because of the Socratic method. Some of that was really good, some of it not so good--depending on the teacher.
Of course, even some of those lectures required you to have done the reading in order to get much out of it.

sally305

Of course great lecturers can have an impact on students. But again, oratory skills are not the basis of evaluation for faculty at masters'/doctoral institutions. If passive learning is so effective why not just listen to webcasts of university lectures or TED talks? Why go to college at all?

I am sure you know I am being facetious--and I did attend a prestigious private university where I received a solid education. But the fact remains that active, engaged learning has been proven to be more effective for most students. I don't think any of us would want to undergo a heart transplant from a surgeon who had only learned how to operate from lectures, would we?

Hunt

No, nor are their skills in conducting "active" learning.

I think it's pretty clear that a student has to be more proactive in a research university setting if he wants good teaching (of any kind) and significant interaction with faculty. But he can get it if he wants it. A student who is willing to take those active steps will experience less of the LAC vs. research U tradeoff. It's a question students should ask themselves--are you willing to look for the best classes, to go to office hours, to take seminars that will challenge you? If you're not, you might do better at a smaller school where some of those elements are built in.

LimitlessProd

You're only in debt the rest of your life, if you get a job that doesn't pay highly....lol stop with the debt crap.

annasdad

And in the current economic times, of course, every college student is guaranteed a job that pays highly, just as soon as they graduate and the debt payments start coming due. Right?

wayward_trojan

The OP's original question is impossible to answer: whether the Ivies are "worth all the bother" depends completely on what the student wants from his/her program. His/her preferences, life goals, career goals, financial constraints, and educational goals are all relevant - it's impossible for this calculus to be the same for any two students.

Much of the reason the Ivies have the reputation they do is because of their students, hence why USNWR is a self-fulfilling prophecy: give a school a better reputation and more ambitious, qualified students will start to fill its seats.

To be honest, I chose Penn purely for its rank, and though it wasn't a perfect fit, I can honestly say I don't regret it for a second: I made life-long friends, studied under world-class professors who cared deeply about their students, and learned more about myself than I ever had before. Could I have done this elsewhere? Probably, but what I think Penn offered me was a chance to be surrounded by so many students who were as focused and interested as I was. (Of course, there are students like that everywhere, but having transferred from a two-year stint at USC, I can attest that there are many fewer of them there.) I think what makes the Ivies and other similarly ranked schools special is that earnest, interested students are the norm, not the exception. I suspect LACs are this way as well, but in an even more intimate environment. (The trouble with an LAC, for me, was that few of them have very active music performance programs. Otherwise, I'd have gone in a second if I could have.)

On the other side of the coin: I will be the first to admit that Penn's music department (where I majored in music) is highly dysfunctional and will not even come close to adequately preparing you for graduate work in musicology or performance. (State flagships are much better in this regard! USC sure was, which is why I'm glad I got so much out of my years there.) Like I said, whether it's "worth the bother" depends entirely on the major and what you want to get from your college experience. I'll be the first to admit that I really wanted the Ivy imprimatur. It's shallow, vain, etc., but it's something that was important to me, and I'm glad I did it. I'm sure it helped some with graduate admissions and will give me a marginal advantage in job applications, but it's no golden ticket: you still have to do the work and market yourself to employers. (And remind them that Jerry Sandusky didn't coach at Penn *cough*)

Bottom line: Both extremes are wrong: the Ivies aren't a golden ticket anywhere, and they're not arbitrarily ranked highly either. An Ivy degree won't give you anything that isn't available at other schools, but I don't think anyone can deny that, generally speaking, the education offered at the Ivies is great. It's great in large part because the students are, on the whole and in my experience, serious and stimulating people who inspire you to want to learn. (Again, true at some other schools as well.) Whether it's worth it is too subjective a question to meaningfully answer: it just depends on the student.

@Sally: Your analogy is flawed, as heart surgery is a physical technique much in the same way playing a musical instrument is: is cannot be taught without literal hands-on experience, as you will never acquire muscle memory from verbal instructions alone. That being said, I agree completely with your general sentiment: lecturing is fine, but active engagement is the gold standard. Socrates was right: emphasis on dialectic is key to education, IMHO. (Law schools seem to do that part right, even if classes are far too large...)

annasdad

I've come to realize that not everyone is convinced by decades of essentially uncontradicted research conclusions. So be it.

Indeed.

From the source I quoted earlier (Three tips from The Thinking Student's Guide to College: 75 Tips for Getting a Better Education by Andrew Roberts

So yes, a third (roughly) of Ivy graduates took the initiative to make connections with "a faculty member [who] took an interest in them," so it's certainly possible. But don't you wonder about the almost two-thirds who went to this highly prestigious, very expensive university - and in four years didn't find a single professor who took an interest in them? I wonder whether that's what their parents expected when they packed them off to HYPCCBPD?

annasdad

Repeating myself:




http://theamericanscholar.org/the-di...ite-education/

LimitlessProd

@annasdad More specifically, it depends on one's major and graduate studies. If, let's say, you decide to study Eastern Asian Literature at an Ivy League, well.......on the other hand, you decide to study medicine and go to medical school. Well debt isn't nearly as big of a problem any more.

If one plans on doing something that pays highly in the future, then the Ivy League isn't such a bad choice. And yes, doctors are highly needed.

Peppino

Your undergraduate experience will stick with you for the rest of your life. You might regret where you decide to spend it if you do not choose wisely.

annasdad

1. Do you know what it costs to go to medical school? Add that on to a huge debt from undergraduate, and I think you'll find many doctors labor to pay off debt for many years after they begin practice.

2. Something like half the pre-meds never make it to medical school.

3. There's scant evidence that an Ivy degree helps much at all in admission to medical school (there's some boost, but not much, according to research). So if medical school is really your goal, why not go to your in-state public university or to a lower-prestige private where you'll qualify for a lot or merit aid, pay a lot less money, work hard, and then go to medical school? (Yes, I know that for some lower-income families, an Ivy education may cost less than their in-state public; there's no reason for those kids not to go to the Ivy, then.)

annasdad

And you'll regret it even more if you don't take advantage of the opportunities it avails, which abound at almost any college. What you do when you get to college is a whole lot more important to your future - economic and otherwise - than where you go.