@Mamapa2 : Many places claim to be undergraduate focused (Georgia Tech is a giant research STEM institute. It’s BME undergraduate program is WAY better than a lot of places who claim to be undergraduate focused primarily because that specific program was one of the first to seriously implement problem based learning), and perhaps they are. The point is, when you describe the caliber of an undergraduate engineering program and whether or not anyone should decide to be a part of it, or whether or not it is “rising”, facilities should not be the first thing to come to mind. It is really only worthwhile discussing the quality and the nature of the engineering education and anythings that may be occurring to even further improve that. “Primarily focused on undergraduates”…well Emory can even get away with claiming that as its undergraduate population is higher than the graduate population, but that doesn’t make a facility the marker of improvement in an undergraduate program. I am just asking people (especially undergraduates) to be very careful when they look at these shiny facilities and think “oooh, this is good for me”…hardly. It usually isn’t for them at research universities, even those claiming to be undergraduate focused.
You clearly missed the point (this professor you speak of: does he only do this because he teaches in a new building? I doubt it. He was probably doing that for a long time…like many more caring professors elsewhere). If I was still at Emory, I could likely say that: “All of my chemistry courses are in the chemistry building”…does not mean the building renovation was for undergraduates. A student there just won a Goldwater as a sophomore…so clearly she was “hooked up with research as a freshman”…but she is also a very strong student and the BUILDING, new or not (plenty of chemistry majors did research as freshmen, won GWs, w/e…and other STEM courses are spread across campus outside of chemistry. I am just extremely confused about this concept…it doesn’t matter), has nothing to do with her success. Arguably the different teaching that took place did:
The girl was planning on neuroscience before and moved to chemistry citing the nature of her introductory course (would it really matter if it was held in an old building if the content and curricula were the same. No, but if it were different or if it was taught as a traditional lecture, that may matter. It doesn’t matter if she, as a freshman, was sitting in a shiny new seat in a shiny new building):
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/23/emory-revamps-chemistry-curriculum
Even here, I do not attribute the building to the girl (the girl who just got the GW is mentioned in this article) or anyone’s success. There was already innovative teaching happening before it.
Also, you are preaching to a choir member. The person is interested in engineering which means that Tufts is a match because it has engineering. I am just saying leave this concept of facilities out of it unless you can cite where simply having that building led to or facilitated noticeable changes in the curriculum (or how instructors choose to teach their courses. Maybe they went from a lecture to a flipped model because the new building only has rooms fitted for the flipped model. That is a significant change) of the engineering program or allowed creation of different courses or activities (things that will contribute to quality in the longrun). I find it as naive and almost deceptive, and you are not the only on guilty of doing it. It is super common in university marketing in general. To say: “look at this shiny building, we’re on the come up”…is really naive and tricky almost.
*note that I can cite many with the same experiences as you had at Emory…or other “elite” private universities. Doesn’t matter what building their courses were taught in.