Graduate quality vs. undergraduate quality

tk21769
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:42:49 +0000

I’ve watched many Berkeley lectures and done some of the problem sets to supplement my own classes, both at my previous school and current one. As best I can tell, the huge lecture courses at these schools are extremely rigorous and demand a great deal from students.



No doubt this instructional model (big lectures with TA-led sections) can deliver challenging problem sets and multiple choice exams. On the other hand, how likely is a student in one of these classes to write 5-, 10-, or 20-page papers that are graded by the professor and returned with thoughtful comments (perhaps with a “see me” instruction at the top)? A good liberal education is not only about learning to come up with the one correct answer from several possibilities. It’s also about learning to express and criticize perspectives on hard problems that may not have one correct answer.



Btw, MIT, Harvard, and Stanford all employ the large lecture class model for some of their intro classes …



True, but compare the percentages of large classes. At Harvard, less than 7% of classes have 50 or more students. At Chicago, less than 6% do. At Columbia, less than 5% have 50 or more. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Texas? More than 18%, more than 19%, and more than 26%, respectively. “50 or more” often means hundreds, and those huge classes will tend to be concentrated in popular majors or in required prerequisites.



If you want to do heavy and rigorous study, in the sciences or mathematics for example, you’d generally be better served at a university than a LAC; If you want to develop you’re writing level heavily, you’d generally be served better at a LAC than a university



There may be some element of truth to this, but note also that some LACs have a pretty good track record for educating scientists. From 2007-2011, according to NSF data, more Carleton College alumni earned PhDs in earth sciences than the alumni of any other college or university. That’s in absolute numbers, not percentages. Tiny Colorado College produced more PhDs in earth sciences (again, in absolute numbers) than Harvard, Cornell, or Penn State, and as many as Michigan. In percentages, Reed College, with ~1400 students, has probably been more productive of science PhDs than any other institution, with the possible exceptions of MIT, Caltech, and Harvey Mudd (another LAC).