<p>“SSobick claims that schools like Florida are far more relevant/important/better at educating undergrads than schools like Amherst.”</p>
<p>I never said that. Did you even read my posts? </p>
<p>Here is a recap:</p>
<p>I believe top Research Universities are better than Non Research Universities & Liberal Arts Colleges. I also stated that in the future LAC will decline in prestige. In addition, if outstanding Non Research Universities fail to build infastructure & endowments then they will also lose clout.</p>
<p>SSobick, what evidence do you have for this statement? It’s fine if you want to speculate, but to imply that this is a factual statement, rather than a baseless opinion, is absurd. </p>
<p>
So if I argued for the validity of evolutionary theory with a creationist, that would make creationism true, by virtue of the fact I was arguing against it?</p>
<p>Your lack of understanding of the phrase “methinks thou dost protest too much” doesn’t speak very well for your education. The appropriate use of that statement is to respond to someone who repeatedly defends themselves against an accusation that is not being made (or has not yet been made). We are responding to arguments that you are making. As tarhunt points out, responding to an argument does not make that argument true.</p>
<p>Let’s stick to the argument. Since you don’t bother to read my posts</p>
<p>Here is a recap:</p>
<p>I believe top Research Universities are better than Non Research Universities & Liberal Arts Colleges. I also stated that in the future LAC will decline in prestige. In addition, if outstanding Non Research Universities fail to build infastructure & endowments then they will also lose clout.</p>
<p>First off, let me thank you for the tone of your posts.</p>
<p>I work in a large, research institution and I have no question that undergrad education can be maintained even with faculty who do NO research. I think the Jesuit schools, for instance, do wonderful teaching, and require rigorous arguments from their students. But they are generally not research schools.</p>
<p>Let’s take a concrete example. I’m currently doing research on defining “morale” in US businesses, using regressions to determine factors that correlate with self-reported feelings of “morale” on a Likert scale. It won’t be the first work in the field, but I think it will be the most comprehensive.</p>
<p>Now, does this research make my undergrad teaching any better? First off, I’m senior enough that I have no undergrad classes this coming semester, and didn’t have any last year. It’s hard to imagine how my having no contact with undergrads aids undergrad teaching. </p>
<p>But suppose I did teach undergrads. Would my research make my classes better? Well, if I were teaching a class on organizational behavior, it might. Or it might not. So far, the prelims suggest that what we are finding was already suspected. We’ll simply be adding some definition and a bit of confidence to previous, published studies.</p>
<p>And what about a field like physics? If a researcher is working on, say, Bose-Einstein condensate, how will that help the undergrad learning the basics or quantum theory? Everything that undergrad may need or want to know is published and any reasonably competent teacher can relate what’s in the published work.</p>
<p>As for the German model, it really doesn’t exist in many places. Top researchers in most large schools do very little teaching and, often, no teaching of undergrads.</p>
Sounds like a claim that research universities (say, Florida) provide a better education than LACs (which are only for “wimpy kids,” like, say Joseph Stiglitz).</p>
<p>
Sounds like a claim that LACs are less relevant and important than large research universities.</p>
<p>
Sounds like a claim that Florida, specifically, is more important/relevant than LACS.</p>
<p>or what about the next line of the post where you claim never to have said that “schools like Florida are far more relevant/important/better at educating undergrads than schools like Amherst”
That quote leaves a few possibilities. Either Florida is not a top Research University (which isn’t what you’re saying over on the Florida board), or you are in fact claiming that schools like Florida are more relevant/important/better at educating undergrads than schools like Amherst.</p>
<p>And for the last time, what is your basis for your future predictions that LACs will decline in importance? That a school in China didn’t do a ranking of them?</p>
<p>Why don’t we just agree that Ssobick is among the least intellectually capable people on this thread and call it a day. I can assure you that, unless he changes substantially, Ssobick will never accomplish much in the sciences, unless he opts for sociology, ethnic studies, or the like. The academic community outside those fields will pretty much rip him to shreds over statements such as certain ranking “prove” certain things or that the stronger the opposition to a thesis, the more likely it is that the thesis is correct.</p>
<p>You can’t have a rational argument with these sorts of people. I think most of you already know that. Once someone like Ssobick has decided that s/he wants to believe something, no conflicting data or well-reasoned argument can change him/her. Basically, it’s the same personality type as the religious fundamentalist. It’s anti-rational and anti-science, however much the person in question may claim to be a “researcher.”</p>
<p>I suggest we ignore him/her and continue the rational part of this discussion among ourselves?</p>
<p>I believe top Research Universities are better than Non Research Universities & Liberal Arts Colleges. I also stated that in the future LAC will decline in prestige. In addition, if outstanding Non Research Universities fail to build infastructure & endowments then they will also lose clout.</p>
<p>Well, it took me seconds to go against my own advice, didn’t it? ;-)</p>
<p>Ssobick, we can’t debate with you. As you’ve already said, even the attempt to debate simply proves your point more in your mind. The more anyone objects to what you have to say, the more (in your mind) it proves your point.</p>
<p>No debate is possible without all the parties understanding and adhering to at least the basics of logical thought laid down 2,500 years ago. You don’t know those or know how to use them.</p>
You talked about LACs in general (of which Amherst is one). Fine, so why don’t you tell us which LACs you are saying are less relevant than the University of Florida.
I take it that this is an admission that some LACs (like Amherst) are better for undergrads, more important, and more relevant than the University of Florida. If you believe this, why don’t you stop making blanket statements about Research Universities compared to LACs.
It’s fine to think Harvard and Yale are better for undergrads than any LACs (I happen to agree, at least about Yale: I chose to attend Yale over Amherst), but the claims you are making are very general. You are claiming that all LACs are irrelevant in comparison to the schools that rank well in SJT’s rankings. If you are making a more specific claim, why not tell us what that claim is?</p>
<p>
Fine, let’s debate this. First, be specific. What counts as a top Research University (since you just admitted that some LACs, namely Amherst, are, in fact better than the University of Florida, which could be construed as a top research university)? Next, what evidence do you have that LACs will decline in prestige? They’ve held up pretty well for 200 years. What counts as a non-Research university (it sounds oxymoronic)? I agree that colleges need good infrastructure, and that large endowments are useful. How does this relate to research (Williams and Amherst, for instance, have very good infrastructure, and large endowments in comparison to most research universities, despite not participating in high-level research)?</p>
<p>Stick to the issues that I had previously stipulated. I will give you one last chance to convince me. If you can make a strong case I will not post on this thread again.</p>
<p>I’m a psychologist, Ssobick. If you can find a study suggesting that sarcasm is a sign of low self-esteem, please provide it.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I can certainly provide tons of evidence that excessive post-decisional behavior like yours is linked very closely to a narcissistic disorder than manifests itself in grandiosity. I can’t say for sure that this is your issue without conducting a personal interview or two, but I would give it an 80% probability.</p>
<p>Believe me, narcissists have very unrewarding and painful lives, and it’s treatable.</p>
<p>Something I’d like to point out that I hope has not been brought up already is alumni giving rates. In my mind I think an alumni giving rate as a guage that can measure students’ overall satisfaction with their undergraduate school; they are almost a form of a customer satisfaction survey that a business would use.</p>
<p>In comparing Amherst, and Williams against Yale and Harvard the LAC’s have the lead</p>
<p>Amherst 62%
Williams 59%
Yale 45%
Harvard 44%</p>
<p>If you broaden the scope, the LAC’s beat the National Research Universities hands down when it comes to “customer satisfaction.” Any business that has this many satisfied customers over long periods of time I doubt will be going anywhere anytime soon.</p>
<p>I tend to disagree with you to some extent. Alumni giving can be tied to disposable income or inherited wealth. If one school has students with more inherited wealth, or that produce more students in high-paying professions, then alumni giving may be high regardless of how much alumni liked the school. The same goes for pressure from other alumni. It’s tough to turn down a fellow alum with whom you do business when a request for money comes in. It may even be tough to be stingy if he’s going to know about it.</p>
<p>That’s not to say that satisfaction isn’t a factor in giving. I’m just not so sure that it’s an important factor.</p>
<p>yea, but when you have only 10 alumni to seek donations from, which school do you think will come out on top. </p>
<p>of course there are more than 10 alum (had to clarify that bf somebody actually took that number as me being serious), but i just had to point out that it is not fair to compare these schools like this. for, amherst has less than 2000 students in total, i believe, while williams has less than 2200 students in total. this is compared to harvard’s 19000+ students in total, and yale’s 11300+ students.</p>
You haven’t made any points. You have simply asserted:
</p>
<p>and made a lot of disparaging comments about LAC students being wimpy for requiring personal attention.
Explain to me what exactly you mean by the above quote. When I tried to argue with you by comparing Amherst with Florida, you admitted to not believing that Florida is better than Amherst. Since you assert that “top Research Universities are better than Non Research Universities & Liberal Arts Colleges,” you will need to explain what universities you believe to be “top” so I can decide whether I agree that they are better than all LACs. You should also provide evidence that LACs will decline in prestige. They have managed to survive to this point without declining in prestige. What will change that? Globalization? They’ve survived a lot of globalization already without suffering blows to their prestige. I’m happy to discuss this with you if you actually make points worth discussing rather than repeating the exact same mantra 6 or 7 times, never with any support.</p>