<p>To be continued: I have to leave for a meeting. </p>
<p>Will be back later in the evening…</p>
<p>WilliamC,</p>
<p>Completely agreed. Thanks for summing it up so nicely.</p>
<p>So far as this thread is concerned, I would suggest you all follow suit and leave for meetings. Without the “To be continued” part.</p>
<p>DSC writes: </p>
<p>"You go to college to learn, then research. Research dollars go (largely) to grads and profs who already got their basic education, frequently in a LAC type learning style.</p>
<p>US universities are considered the best in the world largely because of the more liberal arts format of US colleges."</p>
<p>You must be joking. US universities are considered the best in the world because of their wealth, not because of their format. In comparison with other first rate global universities, the wealth of US major research universities is staggering. The size of their endowments is the single most important factor in their prestige.</p>
<p>monydad:</p>
<p>Good point, and good advice. Arguing with someone who is convinced that opposition is simply proof that s/he is right is pointless. No synthesis possible here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would assume (but am not sure) that, compared to large universities, many top LACS may have a disproportionately high percentage of their student body coming from wealthy families. That also helps to explain why some LAC graduates (coming from wealthy backgrounds and well-connected families) tend to be overrepresented in company boards and politics (not to mention that, after college, they may also move on to Ivy professional schools).</p>
<p>Well, then, what a lot has transpired since!</p>
<p>My case has already been made by the “droves” of others who have graciously offered to take you, SSobick, on at your argument, and for that I thank ye, though obviously you guys are not here to advance anybody’s agenda but for the sake of fair and open debate.</p>
<p>SSobick, believe what you will, read what you will, and selectively remember what you will. If you think all I have is the attitude of a panicking guy on sinking ship, then with all the logic that has been wasted on you, I’d say go ahead - feel free to believe that. Just as strongly as you believe in yours, I’ll say I just as strongly believe in mine. Agree to disagree, with no acrimonious undertones. </p>
<p>One last word of advice: There is no need to stop posting if someone can make a “irrefutable” case against yours. This is a learning process, and if you’re wrong, admit you’re wrong, and refrain from doing the same thing again. UF has benefitted from your advice and it would be a pity to see such a stalwart alma mater leave CC.</p>
<p>Good day.</p>
<p>I have an idea, why don’t we just say that these rankings are important if you want to do research in the sciences, engineering, math, and to a lesser extent some social sciences, but other than that it isn’t very useful. Science/math/engineering majors pay some attention to these rankings. Humanities majors should pretty much disregard these rankings.
I guess also post docs should look at these rankings since these universities will probably have many opportunities. </p>
<p>To all of those complaining about LACs not being fully represented here just consider that these rankings are just like WilliamC outlined, research rankings. That is why the UCs are well represented in the rankings, because they are primarily large research universities unlike many LACs. Don’t consider these rankings as the universities which give the best education (although i expect that there is some overlap to a certain extent) but the rankings to which schools have the best research and best research opportunities.</p>
<p>Tarhunt,</p>
<p>I believe the quality of education tends to deteriorate in the long run in schools that don’t do research basically because, especially in science and engineering, undergraduate curricula evolve over time mostly in response to research innovation. </p>
<p>I will give you a concrete example. Digital signal processing (DSP), which is now a required course in virtually all electrical engineering majors, was completely unheard of 30 years ago. It began as a research subject, mostly in private research labs (like Bell Labs) and a few research universities (like MIT, Cornell, GaTech, Rice, UC Santa Barbara, etc.). In the late 70s, based on their own research papers and their students’ theses, professors in those aforementioned research universities (people like Alan Oppenheim from MIT for example) began to teach graduate classes on DSP and write lecture notes which ultimately evolved into textbooks. Over time , undergraduate seniors in those elite research universities began to take DSP classes with their graduate peers and, eventually, when the subject was already standard knowledge, undergraduate DSP classes became common (as they are today, normally in the junior year). </p>
<p>Throughout the 80s and 90s, as new research areas emerged in signal processing (for example, adaptive filtering, statistical signal processing, image and multidimensional signal processing, etc.), the same pattern seen before in classical DSP repeated itself, i.e. original research progressively made its way into graduate classes, textbooks, and eventually the undergraduate curriculum. Once again, as expected, professors who were also top researchers (people like Haykin, Kay, Scharf, Sayed, etc.) led the way. </p>
<p>Liberal arts colleges, which suffer from the structural shortcoming of not being the primary producers of new knowledge (because they don’t do research) obviously had to resign themselves to being followers, as opposed to leaders in engineering curriculum modernization, and, as of today, continue to lag . Note that the same thing that happened with DSP in the past might well happen today with, let’s say, nanotechnology, bioengineering, embedded systems, or other emerging fields.</p>
<p>Finally, let me make an additional comment on the widely-held view, which you seem to agree with, that research experience is not needed to teach basic undergraduate classes. That is IMHO far from the truth! Active researchers actually have the ability to see the bigger picture beyond basic material (even in Calculus or Probability 101), pointing students to further insights and connections to other disciplines and applications which the non-research teacher, who just follows a standard textbook, normally cannot appreciate.</p>
<p>Tarhunt,</p>
<p>BTW, on another point you made, although I agree SSobick went too far when he (or she ?) talked about “the LAC myth in the US” , the OP is nevertheless right when he/she says that the United States is the only major developed country where top undergraduate students would consider choosing a non-research “liberal arts” college over a top research university.</p>
<p>In fact, in most European countries, non-research higher learning institutions are very low ranked and largely dismissed by the best students and major employers. Note that the example you mentioned of the French "Grandes </p>
<p>"In fact, in most European countries, non-research higher learning institutions are very low ranked and largely dismissed by the best students and major employers. Note that the example you mentioned of the French "Grandes </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anybody is saying that research is a BAD thing. </p>
<p>What people are saying is that research doesn’t substitute for good teaching. Let’s face it. Just because you’re a great researcher doesn’t mean that you’re a good teacher. There’s a big difference between having great insights and being able to explain those insights, especially to those who are not as knowledgeable as you are (and don’t intend to be). The former requires creativity and a supple mind, but the latter requires social and communication skills, as well as audience empathy, something that many researchers lack.</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. I’ve taken lower-division math courses by famous math profs at one of the world’s most research universities. And I often times wished that I was instead being taught those same courses by my high school math teacher instead. Sure, my HS math teacher wasn’t a famous math prof who could come up with any grand new insights. But at least he was able to explain mathematics concepts clearly and in a way that made math fun to learn, something these famous math profs could not do. Frankly, I learned more college math by just sitting in my room reading the textbook than I did by going to class. </p>
<p>Let’s face it. The vast majority of undergrads are not going to become future researchers. In my case, I wasn’t studying college math because I wanted to become a future mathematician. I was doing it because it was a required part of an engineering major. I needed to know the mathematical tools necessary for the later engineering coursework, nothing more, nothing less. Hence, I needed somebody to just clearly explain how to use the tools of multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t care coming up with new theorems. I just want to know how to use the tools. My high school math teacher could have easily provided that (as after all, linear algebra and diffeq aren’t THAT complicated) and in a clearer way than those famous math profs could.</p>
<p>“unless he opts for sociology, ethnic studies, or the like”</p>
<p>What is wrong with Sociology?</p>
<p>I think people are conflating two unrelated things unfortunately. These world-rankings validate the institution itself, and what said institution has accomplished within academia, whereas US News style rankings specifically rank the quality of the undergraduate education one receives at these institutions. LACs will suffer in such “world rankings” because their main mission is not academic output, and that is fine. Conversely, a lot of great public research institutions get short changed by the undergrad rankings in terms of prestige, and to some extent these “world rankings” help to correct that problem. But these rankings should not be misconstrued as a reflection of the prestige CONFERRED upon someone simply by attending these institutions. large public universities play an incredibly important role both within academia and society at large. But by their nature, and their mission-- to serve the populous of the state at large – they cannot be as selective, and thus as prestigious, or as focused on undergrad education, as LACs and even ivy league institutions. </p>
<p>Some state schools are great, and provide great undergraduate educations, but undeniably many do not provide the focus on building an individual that some people see as the real value of an education. Undeniably, self-motivate person can achieve great things everywhere, and a complete anti-intilectual uninterested in study will either fail out of or find a way to skate by and draw little from his education at a top LAC. But nae recognition must not be confused with the quality of education, or especially with the value of a diploma from said institution.
Double this for large state schools in Asia. Undeniably, brand-name prestige becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy out here, but I can tell you from first hand experience, the quality of education in the most prestigious large public universities in China, at least, is embarrassing. It is not surprising that these rankings originate in Asia, where “brand-love” is a rather large problem. Most people here have very little concept of what distinguishes the quality of a university, and even its prestige, from how well the “brand” is known in asia. People are more likely to have heard of large state schools here than smaller universities and LACs that are perhaps considered more prestigious in the US, simply by virtue of their size. (alot also has to do with the fact that the US is perhaps the only country in the world where large publicly funded universities are not the most prestigious institutions. ie HYP are all private, where as Oxford, Cambridge, Tokyo, Peking U etc are all public. in asia, private colleges are generally reserved for dumb rich kids)
but I think part of the problem stems from the fact that this conversation is transpiring in the grad school discussion forum, and many of us have forgotten that for most undergrads, academic output, or the prestige of graduate programs has very little bearing on their undergrad experience or their futures. SSobick and others have said that LACs should expect a dip in their overall prestige, and maybe in similar future rankings that will be the case. But in terms of prestige-where-it-counts, as in employers and grad school admission boards, I just don’t anticipate that great a drop. People in positions where it matter seem to acknowledge a certain value in these institutions. Whether this intrinsic value is real or imagined, it translates to actual value as the people with these conceptions tend to play important roles in the lives of graduates. (hiring and grad-school admissions) “prestige” is a finicky creature, and should not necessarily be confused with name-recognition. The vast majority of people in the US even have not heard of the most prestigious LACs, in part do to the history of many as isolated, elitist clubs for rich white people. (something that has begun to change, fortunately though perhaps not enough.) Their slip in certain rankings aimed at the general population will do little to effect change in their actual value. In other words, in the circles that matter, the LACs will continue to be important. As several people have mentioned, LAC grads tend to do pretty well with grad school. Another measure, perhaps more relevant to the majority of grads, who never do go on to matriculate to grad school, is hiring. Prestigious investment banks and consulting firms regularly flood the campuses of prestigious small liberal arts colleges and higher similar percentages as they do for the ivies. Yes, grads at large states cools can also find such jobs, but they really have to sell themselves. For one reason or another, the recruiting pipelines, which are largely tied to the perceived worth of an education conferred by such institutions, simply aren’t there.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why they didn’t use the ‘Score on Size’ for their final ranking. I mean by not doing so they automatically induce a bias for larger schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Their slip in certain rankings aimed at the general population will do little to effect change in their actual value. In other words, in the circles that matter, the LACs will continue to be important. As several people have mentioned, LAC grads tend to do pretty well with grad school. Another measure, perhaps more relevant to the majority of grads, who never do go on to matriculate to grad school, is hiring.”</p>
<p>Their value is clearly overly inflated. These people do great in graduate schools because usually they are the best students in their high schools. If the “Myth” was exposed, then these outstanding students would go to real universities, and they would most likely do just as well.</p>
<p>SSobick - I agree with your assertion that the Ivy Leagues will matter less in an increasingly global economy. Getting a good job is more about what you are capable of and I really don’t think it matters if you learned it at Yale or at the Univeristy of Ohio. </p>
<p>I wholeheartedly disagree, however, that the liberal arts will be going out of style. Sure, I’m biased because I had a liberal education - and loved it. I majored in History at a LAC and I had a fantastic, well-rounded, and rigorous education. I can honestly say that because I had a liberal education, I have gained a broader and more sophisticated understanding of the world.</p>
<p>I would challenge you to imagine a society that places its emphasis on churning out narrowly focused researchers and engineers. What becomes of a society that does not remember its History or a society that does not value the arts? It stagnates and eventually regresses. The arts and humanities is what makes us uniquely human. It adds joy and meaning to life.</p>
<p>I was listening to a radio interview of the former CEO of Medtronic, a very successful medical manufacturing company. The host asked what it takes to build a good business. He said that too many companies are just hiring MBAs … basically a lot of people who know how to run a business, but not WHY. Eventually the business loses sight of its mission and purpose, and starts to become unethical. He said at Medtronic, he made it a point to hire poets, historians, artists, and philosophers into management. He said they gave perspective and leadership to the company that business people could not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I think we’re missing the point that a lot of hiring has less to do with what you know that with who you know. In other words, social capital often times trumps intellectual capital. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Ever work with a guy who is brilliant, but who you just didn’t like? I have. Trust me, it sucks. And I don’t think it is just a problem with me; everybody in the office disliked that guy. I would rather work with somebody who perhaps is less capable but is somebody who you are compatible with. I’m sure that that guy would have fit in well in some social setting. Just not in ours. </p>
<p>That’s why most hiring is actually done through networking. That improves the odds that whoever is hired is socially compatible with the rest of the organization. Schools are an excellent opportunity to network. Why is Steve Ballmer the CEO of Microsoft? One simple reason. He was Bill Gates’s old poker-playing buddy at Currier House at Harvard. If he had never went to Harvard, he would have never met Gates, and he wouldn’t be heading Microsoft right now. That demonstrates the potential of college to connect you to the right people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this story has a darker perspective. People will inevitably read this story and then determine that they too should then just get their MBA’s. After all, maybe too many companies are hiring too many MBA’s who know how to run companies but don’t know why. But, hey, at least those MBA’s are getting hired. Maybe they shouldn’t be getting hired. But they are getting hired. And yes, maybe those companies do eventually become unethical. But again, hey, at least they’re offering jobs. </p>
<p>Look, don’t get me wrong. I tend to agree with that Medtronics guy. I also tend to agree that too many MBA’s are getting hired by too many companies who don’t think long-term. But as long as that keeps happening, people are going to continue to get MBA’s for the simple reason that they’re risk-averse and so want to pursue the path that has the most available jobs. It’s unfortunate that the system is the way that it is. But like it or not, that is how it is.</p>
<p>Yes, I see it now! Liberal arts & the humanities are a thing of the past. We should all be doing Research at Research Schools!</p>
<p>After all, things like History, theater, the fine arts, dance, music - these are all things of the past. No one needs them! There is no point to studying and debating things like these. In the new global economy, what is the point of understanding different cultures or different languages? We can all just speak in English and TCP/IP!</p>
<p>The ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and every other advanced civilization had it wrong - plain wrong! They had whole schools devoted to philosophy! How useless and namby-pamby! By studying something practical, we can all learn how to create more gadgets, high-tech gadgets at that. Then we can sell these gadgets and make money to buy other gadgets. That is what the world truly needs.</p>