<p>
</p>
<p>I was not referring only to liberal arts colleges (LACs). I’m referring to liberal education more generally in the arts and sciences at both colleges and universities. In my opinion there are big differences in quality; prestige and rankings tend to track these differences rather closely.</p>
<p>I or an immediate family member (parent, spouse or child) have attended schools including 2 of the USNWR top 10 national universities (at roughly opposite ends of that range), a top 5 LAC, a prestigious Catholic university, 2 state flagships and a small college within a “tier 3” national university, a relatively obscure former women’s college, and a very famous law school. Close relatives have attended schools of varying prestige, from Princeton and Wesleyan to flagship state universities, an art school, and a state college that is off the bottom of the rankings charts. With one exception I know about (not in my immediate family), none of us graduated with huge debts.</p>
<p>The “learning environment” differences I see in undergraduate liberal arts and science education, more or less as you go down the rankings ladder (with exceptions), are these: Classes get larger. Libraries get smaller, facilities in general become poorer. Teachers tend to become more boring. They teach more from textbooks and less from primary source materials. More lecturing, less discussion. Grades may get easier but the teacher’s comments more sparse. There is more emphasis on multiple choice tests, less on graded essays. Students become more passive. They ask fewer interesting questions about the material, more about the grading and testing policies, or no questions at all. They become less interested in ideas, more interested in sports and gossip (and the gossip gets less interesting). You meet fewer quirky, eccentric, brilliant people. Books in the library no longer have generations of interesting comments penciled into the margins. There is more red tape and bureaucracy.</p>
<p>What I find odd about some of the reasoning here is the apparent reluctance to weigh and consider the evidence (either the data or other people’s experiences). In a legal career, allegedly the undergraduate “name” does not matter. An applicant from UGA or Morgan State can get into Yale Law. Ergo, all colleges are equivalent. There is no difference in the learning environments. But, since the Yale “name” carries so much more cachet at law firms, there must be a huge difference among law schools.</p>
<p>This reasoning is rather self-centered. It (the line of reasoning, not the person) strikes me as illiberal. Combined with an easy recourse to dismissive statements like “that’s ridiculous”, I would think it is undesirable in a future lawyer (though a certain combativeness is a good thing – and allowing for the weird dynamics of an internet forum.)</p>
<p>I don’t like ganging up on one poster though so please let’s not resort to name-calling or a hectoring tone. I’m grateful for the different perspectives and IMO Hillary’s is very valuable.</p>