Hunt

annasdad, I'm perplexed why you so frequently refute others by claiming that years of research backs you up, but on one particular point you always go back to the anecdotal stories of a disaffected, tenure-denied prof who can't even talk to his own plumber. It seems kind of inconsistent. Is this because you feel like you have to pooh-pooh an element of an Ivy education that you can't deny with statistics--that the student bodies at those schools are highly accomplished?

annasdad

Ah, yes, the ad hominem approach: "disaffected, tenure-denied prof who can't even talk to his own plumber."

But leaving that aside, no, I do it because what Deresciewicz says, based on his experience teaching at two Ivy League schools, aligns so perfectly with what the data shows - that there is no educational advantage to an Ivy education!

And Deresciewicz doesn't deny that the students at those schools are "highly accomplished" - in fact, he says explicitly otherwise.:

bclintonk

Certainly, some professors end up lecturing in small classes. I had that a couple of times in college, too, usually with professors who seemed pretty clueless about other pedagogical possibilities. I really don't think that happens much, if at all, at my daughter's LAC, though, where the faculty is deeply committed to a more interactive style of learning, not just for its pedagogical value, but because it reflects the Quaker ethical principles on which the college is founded. Here are a few snippets from the college's statement of Educational Goals and Aspirations, jointly adopted by the Board and the faculty:

In that context, I think it would be considered a breach of the professor's professional and ethical obligations not to make the classroom an interactive learning environment.

tk21769

Do you really believe William Deresiewicz literally cannot make small talk with his plumber? If he can't, I'd attribute that to his own lack of empathy or social skills, not to his experiences at Yale and Columbia. Really, though, this is besides the point. "Can't talk to the plumber" is a metaphor for the corruption of liberal education. The argument is that research universities have turned the liberal arts into highly specialized activities that no longer address enduring human questions. So after spending a couple of decades in such an environment, one would have no very meaningful perspective on life to offer (whether to an average person or to a highly intelligent college student). In that case, who cares whether the delivery is interactive or not?

However, if this is the state of affairs at Yale and Columbia, why would it be any better anywhere else? Sure, professors at some other schools (LACs, especially) might be less preoccupied with research and more focused on teaching undergraduates. However, if their approach to the liberal arts is equally flawed, the effect may very well be the same (assuming we're accurately describing a prevailing problem). Students at Cleveland State may be getting better trained in observing due dates and attendance requirements, but without being any more engaged in thinking about anything truly important to most human beings.

AvidStudent

After spending a year at one of these "elite" institutions I have come to the realization that my professors are on average brighter, more educated (brand names degrees...) and that doesn't mean anything when it comes to the quality of teaching. I've dealt with the intellectual teachers, the socially awkward and the charismatic professors at Dartmouth.

On average I would give my professors positive reviews when it comes to teaching, but just because he or she graduated Yale (summa cum laude) and got his or her PhD in numerical analysis before the age of 24 doesn't mean he or she is a great at teaching Linear Algebra.

ArtsyGirl13

In terms of if the ivies are worth it I think it also depends on the person. I thought I wanted to go ivy and then realized that they are not a good fit for me (I realized that liberal arts is a much better fit). That being said I know people who have gone to all types of schools and loved it. It comes down to what is important to you in a school and what you make of your experience. For some people the ivies are the correct fit.

SeattleLove13

I haven't read this whole thread, but to answer/comment on the original question I think it's really just about what works for YOU, not your parents or friends. My college counselors told us a story at an assembly a few months ago about two girls from my HS who went to Harvard. They ended up hating it, even though it was such a great school. They ended up taking a road trip or something throughout the US and one girl found the perfect school in Virginia and the other one somewhere in Denver, CO. Neither were ivy leagues, but were perfect for them! They always tell us it's all about "fit fit fit", so if an ivy league just doesn't fit or feel right for you, I don't think you should apply or choose go there. There are tons of great schools out there that can prepare you for a great career and where you will meet amazing people, and the name shouldn't be the main focus, at least in my opinion.

cty4ever

I'd say Ivies aren't worth it. They cause high stress to get in and high stress to stay in. Only if you are looking at a highly specialised graduate degree would I consider it, or if you want to go to one of their grad schools, as they prefer to take people who did their undergrad their. Example: I want to go into something that the Ivies have lacking programmes for, I'm much better off at the handful of less selective colleges that have a strong programme for my intended major. My best friend couldn't major in what she wants at any of the Ivies as they don't offer it, only 6 schools in the country do. Even with medicine your better of not at an Ivy, JHU has what is considered the best pre-med and med programme, it's not an Ivy.
So to me, Ivies aren't worth it at all. They're a status symbol and nothing more.

tk21769

Well then, just because those things are true, does it mean he or she is NOT good at teaching Linear Algebra? Is there a negative correlation here? And if there is, where is the evidence that any other schools have discovered a formula for identifying and hiring great teachers, regardless of their academic accomplishments?

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the Ivies enroll many brilliant students, or that they hire many brilliant, accomplished professors. The data shows that their average class sizes are generally good to excellent (comparable to the most selective LACs in the number of classes < 20, though not up to that high standard in the number of classes > 50).

So what I think we're being asked to believe is that, when you put the nation's top students together in a small class environment with some of the world's most brilliant scholars, surrounded by excellent academic facilities, shower them with money for research and quality-of-life ... somehow, nothing much happens. Not much interaction occurs; not much learning occurs. Or at least, no more than could happen at any average institution at a much more affordable price. The data lies, because in fact there's a bait-and-switch between all those brilliant scholars, who are completely preoccupied with their personal research, and graduate Teaching Assistants. Yet (here's the kicker) ... word never seems to get out, and still these schools perennially maintain their academic reputations.

Have I correctly described the claim? If so, I don't think I can disprove it. I suspect it has some elements of truth, but on balance it strains belief. I don't think the data and the arguments annasdad repeatedly musters have proven his claim. At best, they only show that there is no correlation between the kinds of factors ranked by US News and certain learning outcomes/effects, as examined by a several scholars. But I admit, I haven't yet read their work. If annasdad has accurately and fairly interpreted their argument, maybe there is something to it.

So if you are considering one of these schools, my recommendation would be to go visit them. Sit in on a variety of classes, talk to students, and see what you think.

Willd1

The Ivies do, without a doubt, provide a wonderful education. However, there are many schools that provide an equal or possibly better education. Stanford and MIT immediately come to mind as schools which few would debate provide a better education than at least some of the Ivies. There are many other schools which provide a comparable education. If you want a strong undergraduate focus, the top LAC's (Amherst, Williams, Pomona,etc.) probably offer as good an education as the Ivies. Remember the Ivy League was originally created as an athletic conference.
I don't mean to knock on the Ivies. Even if they are not all the absolute best in the world they are still the creme de la creme. There is no denying that each of them is a wonderful school.
One of the biggest advantages of an Ivy is not related to academics. It is the alumni network. By attending an Ivy you are joining an elite and fairly large society of many extremely intelligent and successful people.
Also, there is the benefit of putting it on your resume. Regardless of the quality of the education, many people will immediately consider Yale better than many other schools and this can help you in your career.
Although I consider myself a little bit of a LAC guy, the top LACs do not have these advantages.
As for are they worth it, really the most important thing is fit. There are top students who would be miserable at an Ivy. For many, a non-Ivy can be better for them than an Ivy. If you are choosing an Ivy solely for its name, you will likely disapointed. However, if I would say that many of the people who just rag on Ivies were likely rejected from them. You must decide, on an individual basis, if they are really worth it.

annasdad

No and yes. I've never claimed that "nothing much happens." Clearly, many students at Ivy League (and other super-selective and highly prestigious schools) get a wonderful education. But I have claimed - because copious evidence shows it - that what happens is "no more than could happen at an average institution at a much more affordable price." I emphasized the subjunctive in the quoteback to draw attention to how I've consistently qualified my claim - that a motivated student can get just as good an education at Michigan as at Yale - and just as good an education at Eastern Michigan as at Michigan.

EDIT: And, as Deresciewicz points out - totally consistent with the data - many students at Ivies and other super-selectives do not take advantage of the opportunities there, and the evidence shows that these students do not get much of an education. They could have learned just as much at Eastern Michigan - more, had they applied themselves. As a corollary to "getting into an Ivy is the hard part, once you're there, it's hard to get thrown out" (paraphrasing Deresciewicz), I would suggest, "getting into an Ivy is the first step, it's what you do there that determines how valuable the experience will be."

You're arguing with yourself. You say I haven't proven my claim - yet then you go to say that at best, they show only what I've claimed - that there is no correlation between the kinds of factors ranked by US News and certain learning outcomes/effects, as examined by several scholars - and, I would add, apparently not refuted by any, since I'm sure if there was such refutation it would long ago have been cited here.

Yes, as Pascarella and Terenzini admit (p. 76):

As does Andrew Roberts:

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

Yes, indeed, mythology certainly is a powerful force.

jym626

Andrew Roberts attended smaller schools (Williams and Princeton) and teaches at a smaller school (Northwestern). He argues that a student will find it easier to get personal attention at a smaller school. Well, duh. His book focuses on the "purpose" of an education being to learn to communicate, think and build character, and how to achieve that. His premise is that to get the best education , unless a student is a go-getter and proactive , they will have a harder time getting the personal attention and accessing the opportunities that exist at a large U. He argues (stating the obvious) that at small teaching-oriented colleges "almost all of the classes are taught by professors. Many more, probably most, of them will be small seminars. You will likely get to know many of your professors personally or at least have the opportunity to do so."

Brian1

Before I went to college, I would have said, yes it's worth it. After finishing grad school, I've come to my senses and realized that the only reason why people should attend a university is to get a good job, not for prestige. And Ivies don't really help you get a good job, not in this economy.

So the answer is no, unless you major in something that can get you a job and your parents are footing the bill or it's largely free. I'm not even sure I would pay 50k, let alone 200k, for undergrad even with a real major. A good chunk of my generation is unemployed, including those who went to Ivies.

sewhappy

Sorry, but you are very wrong on this statement. The ivy our older one attended had amazing job recruitment. There is a very big assumption among many employers that kids at the most prestigious schools are highly intelligent, motivated and just simply exceptional. They pursue them.

I don't think "Ivy" is that big a deal. I think selectivity is the big deal. Employers often assume that the highly selective universities have already pre-screened and identified top talent. So that is where they recruit intensively.

This is not to say that kids can't attend all kinds of less selective schools and do fantastically well in their careers. But it is kind of ridiculous to try to claim that attending a highly selective university does not confer a substantive leg up in employment, social status, and opportunity.

tk21769

Oh. I thought you were making a somewhat broader set of claims.

I can well believe that there is no strong correlation between alumni giving, Peer and QC Assessments, average SAT scores, etc., and those learning outcomes/effects.

Presumably,though, there is some set of factors that ARE correlated with the same outcomes/effects (factors having to do at least in part with the quality of the learning environment, such as teacher-student interaction). What I think you haven't proven is that the same schools that rank highly on the US News factors would not also rank highly on these other, truly important factors. Maybe I've overlooked part of your argument.

Consider some of the assertions about the use of TAs at the Ivies. How do I know that the "Harvard TA" (imagine a bumbling, disengaged grad student who hardly can speak English) isn't much more than an urban legend? I'm not aware of any hard data on the use of TAs at various universities. I also don't know how to assess how good or how bad is the instruction provided by the average TA. So I can only rely on what, to me, amounts to little more than heresay (as well as my own personal experiences and first-hand reports from family and friends).

Now, if you are arguing that NOTHING about the learning environment matters, that the outcome is almost entirely about personal motivation and effort, then I think that is a fairly radical argument that is hard to completely prove or disprove from available evidence.

But, I would say you've provided reasons to be skeptical about the presumptive quality of education at these schools.