Harvard v. LACs

D.T · May 24, 2007, 12:37am

Sure Hanna, you’ve exhibited traits like “Look if I’m smart enough to do the course by my own independent study and not go to class but look for the professors by myself and not bother myself with slightly slower classmates when this chapter is so easy and it’s a waste of my time blah blah” which is fine. I think Harvard is a great place to do that because 1. The resources are endless for those who want it and will do something to make full use of them and 2. Yes, nobody really cares if you don’t go to class as long as you meet the grade. Heck, John Nash never attended a class in Princeton yet he came up with The Game Theory entirely by his own. Pretty much proves your point.

But pause just a minute and consider what you just said. You make the LAC seem like a damn nursery. To me, that does not just show unjustified condescension coming from someone who prides herself/himself as being in-your-face and independent and etc etc etc., but that shows gross misinformation. The LAC can be for fiercely independent people (self-study programs, design your own major, overseas studies) but which emphasizes close interaction with the professors from Day One. Yes, if you insist, some professors will coddle, but many more others won’t. The pitch that LACs use is that the promotion of discussion among peers of simliar or greater intellectual ability will generate ideas, passion, and debate, as well as encourage kids with perhaps diffidence to SPEAK UP AND GROW UP AND BECOME MORE SELF ASSERTIVE.

The LACs are not nurseries. They believe in their own way of making leaders, intellectuals, and accomplished businessmen. To equate that with coddling, hand-holding, and indulgence is to say the least, wrong.

carlmom · May 24, 2007, 8:45am

Many students on CC boards claim that one quality they are looking for in a school is smart, engaging fellow students. Well, I love the idea of students sitting around at a Harvard eating hall and discussing the Theory of Relativity or how we are going to manage our way out of Iraq. However, as someone who has logged over 30 years at places of “higher learning,” I believe that much of that type of stimulating discussion happens in the classroom, not the dining hall. In the best example, the professor is a facilitator rather than a mere lecturer. In that setting the student learns at least as much from his/her fellow students. They learn how to participate in a team setting, how some people like to hear themselves think out loud, and how others rarely speak but when they do something extraordinary may come out of their mouth. They learn how to construct a convincing argument. They learn that facts are stubborn things and that the truth is hard to come by–in my opinion, the single-most important thing that one can learn in the undergraduate setting.

If I am understanding Hanna correctly, she thinks the student who does not attend classes yet aces the class has not given up anything. Rather, they have further enhanced their ability to be “independent.” But, in my observation, they have actually given up a lot of the undergraduate experience by thinking they have nothing to learn from anyone else, especially their fellow students.

Where is the type of learning that I have tried to spotlight most likely to happen? In high-level classes at universities and most classes at LACs. That’s why many of us here keep trying to hammer that fact her way.

hoedown · May 24, 2007, 9:44am

You may misunderstand my point. This was not the culture of the college and really wasn’t a “match” issue–it was how one professor chose to do something, which (to my way of thinking) had nothing to do with coddling.

Nor am I suggesting that this should have been a match for you, or that this was an ideal way to handle things. What I was saying is that a small college does not always equal coddling. That’s all. I’m sorry I muddled that.

The item about blowing off class until the final related to the story told earlier about CalTech (and perhaps MIT) by another poster.

My point was that there are many kinds of professor-student relationships and many kinds of expectations. I object to the notion that continues to be forwarded here, which is that small liberal arts colleges feature only a “tender loving care” approach to pedagogy.

I believe that students at LAC may encounter other kinds of high expectations. PERIOD. That has nothing to do with what you or I or other posters here find a good fit, or find insulting, or experienced in high school at Harvard or Oberlin or anywhere else.

afan · May 24, 2007, 11:48am

It depends on the course, the student, and the student’s goals for the course. In the humanities “acing the exam” may be impossible. Many courses have papers but no tests, and class participation is part of the evaluation. Even if one wrote an excellent paper without attending class (if that were even remotely possible, since the professor would probably want to see something of the class discussion come through) would miss the point of being there.

In technical fields, many courses are designed to teach how to approach and solve certain kinds of well defined problems. People who can do that have mastered the material of the course, and class discussions are rare anyway. The classes are used to clarify the assignments and methods. If these are clear to a particular student, then there may not be much to be gained by attending. Of course, by skipping, the student misses out on the chance to extend beyond the text and homework, ask the professor for more in depth consideration of the material, and become more engaged. In one’s major, these secondary gains of class participation may become important. For an engineering major who wants to be able to solve differential equations, but can pass on the deeper beauty of mathematics, then going to class may be optional.

Here are comments from a stereotypical MIT math genius about courseload, class attendance, and mastery of the material

“…the next term I took eight classes, and after that I took nine, and I took seven this semester.”

"How do you even schedule all of these classes? "

“I dont go to some of them. … For some of the courses I’m taking, I learned about half of the material in high school, or in another related course. …most of the time they’re not going to talk about something I don’t already understand. If they do, I’ll just read about it in the textbook, so I can pick up the material from other sources.”

For a kid like this, going to class would limit his options. Now he is an extreme example, but the point is, apparently, no one objects to this approach.

Hanna · May 24, 2007, 7:37pm

"Sure Hanna, you’ve exhibited traits like “Look if I’m smart enough to do the course by my own independent study and not go to class”

Actually, I haven’t. I virtually always went to class in college, because almost all of my professors were good.

“If I am understanding Hanna correctly, she thinks the student who does not attend classes yet aces the class has not given up anything.”

They haven’t given up anything if the classes were useless. I was responding to a specific anecdote about a professor who needled students who skipped class. I almost always went to class (at both my LAC and Harvard) because I found the classes valuable (yes, I believe I was capable of distinguishing a worthy class hour from a wasteful one). But a student who’s skipping class clearly doesn’t think the class is worth his/her time. I wouldn’t want a professor to nag me for not wanting to waste time, and I don’t particularly want to be surrounded by classmates who are only there because the professor needled them into attending.

'In that setting the student learns at least as much from his/her fellow students."

Well, assuming that the other students are well-prepared and willing to speak up, which was consistently the case at the classes I’ve attended at Harvard and Swarthmore (for example), but not at every LAC. Not by a long shot. Whether there are great discussions in a class is determined by a number of factors, but whether the school is an LAC or not is not one of them.

“that shows gross misinformation”

Since I attended an LAC (really, two of them, brother/sister schools), I’m speaking from my own direct experience. If your experience is different, go ahead and share it. But your contrasting observations don’t mean that my experience is “misinformation” and your experience is truth.

“as well as encourage kids with perhaps diffidence to SPEAK UP AND GROW UP AND BECOME MORE SELF ASSERTIVE.”

Of course. Which is one reason that I’ve said repeatedly that LACs are the best choice for many individuals. But if you’re already comfortable speaking up, relying on yourself, and being assertive, then an LAC can indeed feel limiting. I didn’t find it like a nursery, but I did find it like swimming in a supervised pool wearing water wings when I wanted to be leaping off the high dive and surfing in the ocean. In other words, it’s extremely safe, and a great way to learn fundamentals, but if that little pool isn’t exactly what you want, you have no options but to leave.

vonlost · May 24, 2007, 8:08pm

Almost? At Swarthmore and Harvard? At these schools, likely at most schools, the observation says more about the student than the professors.

Wasteful? At these schools? Ditto.

SarahsDad · May 24, 2007, 9:42pm

From a former Yale Professor, regarding undergrad science research:

“There were only two of us in the lab, so we received a great deal
of personal attention from our professor. She was always there for
us. We have great students here at Yale, too, but they are handed
off to a graduate student or postdoc for their research. It doesnt
compare with the quality of the research experience I had at
Pomona.”

Jennifer Doudna, Professor of Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Investigator, UC Berkeley. Excerpted from Thomas Cech Article cited by I-Dad above. <a href=“http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf[/url]”>http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf</a>

D.T · May 25, 2007, 12:05am

Is this discussion limited to the top LACs (like to give an arbitrary number top 50) or is it a discussion of ALL the LACs? It definitely should be the former, because if it is not, everybody can says things like “yeah, these apply to the TOP LACs but not to everyone and therefore it doesn’t apply to the LACs” and we can’t establish any characteristics or qualities about the LACs that will help to advance this line of opinion. I think that we are speaking Hanna, about the top LACs here. This is for your ‘not in every LAC’ point.

Hanna, if I understand you correctly, Swarthmore felt like a lap pool with baby floats and supervised instructors? Ouch.

Misinformation point - I concede.

You’re right. No one can argue against your experience. But even if that’s how you feel was the case in Swarthmore then I’m not sure extending it by default to all or indeed most students that are “comfortable speaking up, relying on yourself, and being assertive” will feel severely constricted in a LAC is exactly truth either.

Any Swats in the house to offer similar/dissimilar perspectives?

interesteddad · May 25, 2007, 12:22am

D.T.

Hanna was not a Swarthmore student, although I believe she did take a class or two there before she transfered from her original LAC to Harvard.

There are two problematic biases with transfer students. First, they transfered, which probably means they weren’t happy at their original school. Second, they are comparing a 2nd, 3rd, and/or 4th year experience at their new school to a 1st year experience at their original school. Even if you are happy as a clam and stay put, the 3rd and 4th year academic experience is usually much better than the 1st and 2nd year academic experience as you move beyond the basic pre-req courses into more interesting stuff and, more importantly, learn how to pick the “good” professors.

A third potential transferee bias comes into play when a student transfers out of a school that wasn’t at the top of their admissions list to begin with, i.e. a “safety” school. I have no reason to believe this was the case with Hanna, but it is frequently the case with disgruntled transferees.

D.T · May 25, 2007, 4:24am

Ah ok, thanks interesteddad, that sure clarified quite a few things =)

coureur · May 25, 2007, 9:06am

However, at least a transfer student can make a direct comparison between two schools based on their own direct experience, which is far more valid than one based on mindless stereotypes that they “heard somewhere” or that “everybody knows.” I’ll take an opinion based on limited facts any day over one based on no facts at all.

WesDad · May 25, 2007, 9:54am

Look, Hanna went to Bryn Mawr and apparently took classes at Haverford (I think not so many at Swat) – and I assume her swmming pool dig was aimed at them. I wonder if it has occurred to her that not all LACs (or top LACs) are the same as those two schools. You could not necessarily generalize from the experience at Harvard or Columbia to what it is like at Brown or Dartmouth (or U. Michigan).

tommybill · May 25, 2007, 10:57am

From what I have read from Hanna she sounds like she will make a very good litigator.

D.T · May 25, 2007, 11:32am

Sometimes it’s more dangerous to have limited facts and draw seemingly solid conclusions from that than having no facts and mindlessly generalizing and stereotyping. The fallaciousness of the latter is easier to expose, while the flaws in the former are much harder to discern.

hoedown · May 25, 2007, 11:43am

D.T. you’ve just identified one of the worst things about College Confidential. LOL

coureur · May 25, 2007, 1:09pm

Right, which calls into question the whole point of this thread – Harvard vs. LACs. Such a discussion assumes that all LACs are pretty much the same.

One might think that, but it’s apparently not the case. Since on this thread and plenty of other places lots of people are quite willing to vigorously assert all the negative stereotypes of going to Harvard, in spite of having no direct knowledge. And still others seem quite willing to lap it all up. The fallaciousness of this doesn’t slow them up a bit. That’s one reason why a little bit of actual direct knowledge and experience goes a long way – it’s such a refreshing change.

D.T · May 25, 2007, 11:20pm

That may be so, but the rules of the game always seem to change when it comes to Harvard. I’m sure that in the US, an unmatched number of people dislike/hate/abhor with varying intensity Harvard just for being Harvard.

Hence, in this case, outright stereotyping in the other direction goes against Harvard, and far from being beaten down, it gathers steam. Ultimately, Man is only as rational as his heart, IMHO. It really depends on the level of importance (importance is independent of the nature of emotion) of the entity that lies in the people’s minds. No University can claim to be of equal eminence to Harvard (in the US), just as no person can claim to be hated more than Bush/Osama/Kim Jong insert another name appropriate but I’m only trying to illustrate something, not start a new thread in the US.

And I’m not trying to speak against anybody here, but the person, as you’ve rightly pointed out, who can in the midst of these errrrrr buffoonery suddenly give some actual experience, is suddenly seen as relatively lucid, and few bother to level any critical analysis of his/her ideas at this sudden gush of fresh air.

Shrug Anyway it’s a free world (insofar as this forum is concerned). So let the views come. I think the more discussion happens, the more (in general) clarity this debate will throw light upon.

Harvard v. LACs

CONNECT WITH US