<p>So far in this thread–
Hillary has denounced the notion of merit pay-- that those who do a better job earn more or seek to earn more, despite the fact that the days of faculty being loyal to their university are long gone and academics now routinely switch positions.</p>
<p>She has denounced the notion that any factor affecting the classroom environment affects the ability to learn.</p>
<p>She has denounced the notion of recruiting, alumni networks, etc.</p>
<p>She has gone to graduate rankings and started to compare comprehensive universities to schools which are elite, but often forced to specialize because of their far smaller size.</p>
<p>She has ignored the composite findings of such rankings which disagree with her point anyway.</p>
<p>She has assumed that students are motivated and act in isolation-- that there is no “lifting up” effect by being surrounded by top students as opposed to feeling isolated because of the large size and few numbers of top students.</p>
<p>She has assumed that the value of the out of classroom interactions are the same because they’re equally available, but forgets that they’re also populated with a very different set of people.</p>
<p>She has ignored the feeder school evidence by simpling saying the sole difference between these schools is the input-- selection of bright, motivated people-- and that nothing happens in between that is of greater value for that student.</p>
<p>She has also presented 0 evidence (as have most people in this thread), but in this case, the burden of proof is on her because almost every rhetorical argument she makes is against our current understanding.</p>
<p>Is it the end of the world if you’re not at an elite school? Hell no. Are some extremely smart, motivated, wonderful students at non-elite schools? Absolutely. Can you be extremely successful coming out of these non-elite schools? Of course, I know people who are way more successful than anyone I know without even having a degree from anywhere.</p>
<p>However, to say that on average the notion of top schools is nonsense and that they are no better than any other school is simply untrue.</p>
<p>It’s patently untrue that I could receive the same quality of education at Binghamton that I did at Brown, despite the fact that I’m enterprising and all of that. I’ve sat through classes at both and I’ve seen the huge difference in quality, even if only anecdotally. And I don’t have to go that far in rankings to find that kind of disparity, and I’m not even talking about the disparity when it comes to out of the classroom stuff. Seriously.</p>
<p>Sure, in the USNWR graduate school rankings, it’s easy enough to find examples of large public universities out-ranking individual “elite” schools in particular departments. But look at the top 10 across all liberal arts and science fields. Over and over, in virtually every department, the same ~15 elite private schools show up, interspersed with a few large, well-funded public flagships (such as Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin). You don’t see anything resembling broad representation of the many public universities throughout the country.</p>
<p>
No, I can’t. What does “often” mean? How many of the top ten spots, in these USNWR graduate rankings, are occupied by public universities? For English, I count 3 in 10. For History, I count 3 in 10. For Psychology, I count 5 in 10, which is one of the strongest showings. In Mathematics and Economics, I count only 2 in 10. The rest of the spots go to the usual suspects.</p>
<p>Again, the public universities outnumber these few elite schools ten-fold or a hundred-fold.
It is only a few states that seem to be able to make the public model competitive with the Ivy-type model, even against the criteria valued by these rankings, which are not clearly the ones most relevant to the quality of undergraduate instruction.</p>
<p>1) As far as “merit pay” is concerned, I simply pointed out that one’ salary does not indicate one’s ability to teach, connect with, and mentor students. It’s nonsensical to suggest that because professor A makes $50,000 more than professor B, professor A is somehow a better professor.</p>
<p>2) False. In fact, I have done quite the opposite. I have agreed that “learning environment” contributes to one’s education, BUT THAT THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THE ELITE SCHOOLS. Are you even reading this thread Meldoy?</p>
<p>3) Alumni networks were never brought up in an earnest, factual way. Thus, I cannot denounce something that was never broached.</p>
<p>4) Graduate rankings are very relevant for the argument at hand. Once again, please take the time to read the thread. Sidenote: If a university were truly elite, it would not have to compartmentalize its strengths - it would be strong across the board.</p>
<p>5) What? This makes no sense.</p>
<p>6) Once again, fish in the pond theory: some people are more comfortable knowing they are on top and discouraged when they aren’t. And some people act in an opposite way.</p>
<p>7) This is very true - and we can see from the graduate rankings that often time we can assume that the “people” are more qualified and more accomplished in the respective departments at the non-elite schools.</p>
<p>8) And if a person at a non-elite school does not go on to an elite school for graduate study? Are you suggesting that their experiences are somehow not as valuable as a) a person who went to non-elite and then elite or even b) a person who went from elite to elite?</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at the top 25 Ph.D. programs in History, English, Economics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology. We’ll say the “elite” means a top, small to medium private school and a “non-elite” school is a large, public school.</p>
<p>ECONOMICS: 8 non elite, 17 elite
HISTORY: 12 non elite, 13 elite
ENGLISH: 12 non elite, 13 elite
POLITICAL SCIENCE: 12 non elite, 13 elite
SOCIOLOGY: 13 non elite, 12 elite
PSYCHOLOGY: 14 non elite, 11 elite</p>
<p>In Economics, there is a significant amount of more elites than non-elites. BUT ONLY IN ECONOMICS! The difference is by only ONE in English, History, and Political Science. And there are MORE non elites than elite in both sociology AND psychology!</p>
On average, if I do the same job as you but I’m paid more, even when taking into account differences in local expenses, it’s fair to assume I’m better at my job, period. If we’re talking 50k more that’s essentially an increase of 50-70% of a professor’s salary, and you can be damn sure that professors getting that much more money are being paid that due to a competitive desire to have that person on your campus-- which only happens if you’re any good at your job. Schools don’t pay faculty more simply because they can-- they do so because it makes a job there way more desirable and therefore they can be far more selective in hiring. Selective hiring means they bring in the best people. It’s a pretty simple concept which you have not really effectively argued against. If your argument is that while they may be better “professors”, that teaching is simply one role a professor plays and therefore they may not be better instructors, then you’d be making an “ok” case. Only then you move on to measure programs by the strength of the graduate school which is measured on everything but teaching quality and in fact, ignores teaching quality so I’m not sure you could make this case without being inconsistent in your total argument.</p>
<p>
I have, and I’ve seen tk present the evidence that the qualities which create a learning environment are present in schools other than elites-- with far less frequency in specific areas and far less likely across the board. Is it still a generalization with all of the flaws of a generalization-- YES. Is it still a fair generalization, as these things go-- YES.
It’s inherent in recruitment efforts, IMO.
If a university is elite in the sense that it’s one of the best places for undergraduate education, it does mean that they will be strong as a graduate school across the board. There are simply different paths a university has to take if the motivation is to be a comprehensive elite graduate institution versus undergraduate. Those that take the undergraduate route are often allocating resources differently and therefore only have a certain amount of resources to dedicate to building a top graduate school. Despite this fact, most of the top schools in one area are STILL top in others, GENERALLY, with all the problems of generalization intact, as TK has shown.</p>
<p>Again, if on the one hand you argue professors are not making more for teaching ability, then one has to ask, is it solely because of research output? Graduate schools are pretty much solely ranked on research output, and I have to ask, “How does one professors publishing more papers demonstrate their ability to teach better?” to use your own styled question against you.</p>
<p>
Out of classroom interactions-- all extracurricular/co-curricular activity. If you’re with people who are amazing during those interactions, the quality of those activities will be higher.
Once again, you’ve basically only presented the argument-- GENERALIZATION HAS PROBLEMS. No one would argue against that, however, that doesn’t mean that all generalizations have no value and that there is 0 truth to all generalizations.</p>
<p>
Not really sure what you’re saying here. I think you’re basically stating that the fact that schools that are seen as non-elite are sprinkled throughout top grad school rankings that we can’t say that elite schools are better? First, that misses the point of mine I think you’re addresssing, which was that you claim elite schools only place better because they attract the brightest students, not because those schools actively do something to educate them better. I don’t really see any evidence for that claim, and my own experiences demonstrate a very different picture. However, to the point you do seem to be making, again, generally, we can look at tk’s evidence to see that while there certainly are many exceptions, elite schools on the whole do better on the rankings across all fields.
I’m not really sure what you’re asking here, but if you’re saying-- hey, what about the kid who did really well at a non-elite school and then goes to an elite program? Then my response is this – 1) While they’ve distinguished themselves and got a great education, they had more barriers to this for all the reasons above and 2) They sometimes find they are under-prepared relative to peers (my own experience at grad school as well as several friends who are now at elite grad schools, as well as my experience coming from a non-elite high school into an elite college environment).</p>
<p>Your whole point seems to be hinged on the problems of generalization in any arena-- however, sometimes the generalization is quite fair, even if it may not ring true for every single person.</p>
<p>1) This argument would be flawless…assuming that every school in the entire country had an equal endowment. Enough said.</p>
<p>2) The simple fact remains that a positive and good-quality “learning environment” are by no means exclusive to elite schools. Is it easier to tap into and benefit from this environment at an elite school? Yes. But is it possible, with extra work, to do that same at a non-elite school? Yes.</p>
<p>3) I stand by my statment. Never broached, never denounced.</p>
<p>4) Research outlet is, admittedly, not the ideal way to measure a professor’s ability to teach, but it is much more effective than his or her salary. One’s salary doesn’t indicate that he or she is knowledegable in the field and has exerptise on the subject; research output does (or at least it does to a much greater extent).</p>
<p>5) Once again, there will be more than one excellent student at a non-prestigous school. At large public schools, there will be many of them. These students just have to work harder to find one another.</p>
<p>6) That’s all that anyone is doing - presenting their respective arguments. Take it for what it’s worth.</p>
<p>7) First of all, they are not “sprinkled.” Non-elite schools consistenly rank equal to or higher to elite schools in graduate rankings. Secondly, pesonal experience is simply that - you can’t apply it to a whole. I’ve mentioned personal experience myself in this thread, and I realize that my experience can differ from someone else’s. </p>
<p>8) Yes, they did have more barriers to cross - which makes it all the more worth it in the end. Secondly, while you, melody, may find them to be “under-prepared” the professors on the admissions committe obviously thought that they would do just as well as the other students admitted.</p>
<p>^ O.K., that’s better. Summarize the data in a reasonably comprehensive way, then we can think and talk about it.</p>
<p>Is working from the top 25 better than working from the top 10? Maybe, maybe not. Remember, there are only 8 Ivies and 1 of them is Dartmouth, which is really more like a LAC. Add Chicago, Northwestern, WUSTL, Hopkins, etc., and we are still held to a rather small number. If virtually all these same elite universities are repeatedly bunched up near the top N, well then as you increase the size of N, sooner or later you start running out of Ivies++. </p>
<p>We haven’t even accounted for the selective LACs. Where do they belong? Unfortunately, we do not have a good, comprehensive ranking of all-school undergraduate department rankings. We can assume that a strong graduate department translates to good undergraduate instruction. Maybe. In my mind, the faculty:student ratio has a huge bearing there, and private selective schools seem to have the advantage.</p>
<p>Yes, the point about only 8 Ivies is a valid one. BUT, I think that following is worth mentioning:</p>
<p>If we use our working definition of “elite,” (that is, a small or medium, top-ranked private school), we can say that the top twenty schools on U.S. News and World Report are elite. They are all prviate, all small or medium, all are (obviously top-ranked). With this in mind, you might expect the top 25 Ph.D. programs earlier discussed to have a ratio of something like 20:5, whereas we have seen that it is usually more even, 13:12.</p>
All this means is that some universities have more money to attract and pay more professors better. If what you’re saying is that it’s not fair-- you’re right. It’s not fair. Schools with more money can pay more professors more. The result is they have more of the top professors for all of the reasons why you admit higher pay attracts top people.</p>
<p>
That’s all anyone is saying precisely in this thread-- elite schools, on the whole, are dominated by these better learning environments. While some non-elite (by your definition, not necessarily mine) have these environments on campus, they are nowhere near as pervasive, and the “poor” environments are not as avoidable.
So I’ll say it-- better alumni networking which means better recruitment and hiring for fellow alumni.
</p>
<p>Well you actually reaffirmed merit pay, and simply said it wasn’t fair because universities have disproportionate resources to compete with. I don’t think that expertise = teaching skills, it’s just a small part. We’ve all had that one professor who was brilliant but not great at translating his brilliance to undergrads.
</p>
<p>Once again, when I show up to… a homeless advocacy group on campus at an elite school, the quality of students I’m surrounded with will generally be the quality of leadership on other campus. Higher quality interactions are occurring outside of the classroom by being literally surrounded by the most prepared no matter where you walk, without developing a clique from a subset of the school that is both brilliant and shares all of my same interests, even as I grow and develop to new places.</p>
<p>
No one would argue that generalizations do not have huge flaws. Are you simply saying never generalize anything? Is that the crux of all these posts?
Look at the composite NRC data across 41 fields. I’m just saying, I’ve sat in on classes at 10 institutions of various types and, like most people, have friends at probably 150 different schools across the country that have helped my perspective. There is a difference, with exceptions, generally speaking, from all of my own observations. Is this super generalizable? No, but it means from my perspective I have a higher burden of proof to suggest that the courses are just as high quality and challenging to the point of being generalizable. Note, I would say this is typically more of a big deal with intro classes than higher level courses (at least in the sciences).
</p>
<p>Why does it make it more worth it?</p>
<p>I’m saying that people get bogged down in way more work because their undergraduate schools did not challenge them nearly as much as my preparation did. They were equipped for success, but had to do a lot more to keep up. I saw this when taking graduate classes as an undergrad and I’ve heard this from friends in medical school, grad school for sciences, and grad school for social sciences. They can read more and learn more from it faster than their classmates. They have more background preparation and are more used to the style of assignments as well as having increased access to more “authentic” activity that matches the kind of work you do as a graduate student.</p>
Looking at the overall NRC rankings, only 6 out of the top 25 rank outside the USNWR top 25. Only 1 ranks outside the USNWR top 50.</p>
<p>NRC top 25
7 of the 8 Ivies (all except Dartmouth)
4 of the 5 elite publics (Berkeley, UCLA, UNC, Michigan)
8 elite privates (Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Chicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Stanford)</p>
<p>6 other colleges (Illinois, Minnesota, UCSD, UT Austin, Washington, Wisconsin)</p>
<p>
Yes, and exactly how many courses do students take in their major? Perhaps 1/3 at the most?</p>
<p>Sure, Arizona might top Johns Hopkins for anthropology…but in terms of overall education, Hopkins has a heck of a lot more resources and top-notch faculty to work with. The great thing about top universities is that they’re at least decent in everything, which cannot be said for other colleges.</p>
<p>(re: post 128) Right, some of the private, national universities with USNWR top 20 or 30 undergraduate schools do not have comparably high graduate program rankings. Similarly, many of the big state schools with high graduate school rankings may not have equally good environments for undergrads.</p>
<p>If you are very confident you know what you want to major in, you have AP credits in that field, and your state university has a top 10 graduate department in that field, it may make excellent sense to decline Georgetown at $50K in favor of the state university for half that price. Assuming you’d be paying the difference and don’t attach an extra $25K value to any other things GU has to offer.</p>
<p>How did this turn from a question asking where a guy who wants a more laid-back atmosphere into something debating whether elite schools are better than regular ones?</p>
<p>Modest, all that clear thinking you learned from those probably sub par profs at your ivy, bolstered by the lucidity developed by daily interaction with your one dimensional (smart) classmates, shows.</p>
<p>This thread itself may ironically give the OP the answer needed.</p>
<p>Seriously, I think this has been a spirited discussion. It is good to question our basic assumptions about what is “best”, and how we know what we think we know. But now that we’ve all agreed Brown is perfect for the OP, we can relax.</p>
<p>I think this is the general consensus everyone has reached.</p>
<p>The quality of education doesn’t differ among the schools, but the quality of the students does. An ambitious, aggressive, and diligent student can get the same quality education at a non-elite school, they just have to work harder to get it.</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the consensus at all. I think that’s your point summed up since the first post.</p>
<p>I still hold the quality of education does differ among schools, and while one can work very hard to carve out a niche at a large school and find the very best offerings available there, it takes considerable worth and still may only work in certain fields at certain schools. Where we draw the line on elite may be quite different, but bottom line is there is a difference, and you can work hard to make up most of that difference at many places, but not always. And more than that, that same amount of effort to find those kinds of opportunities will definitely take you further at a top school.</p>