@ucbalumnus : But that’s the point…the other instructors absolutely DO NOT want to teach at that level (they want to make certain claims and not get caught doing otherwise), especially the more famous among them (researchers that is). In terms of Emory, I’m talking people like Liotta (big name in medicinal/organic) and Davies (runs a whole research consortium with schools like Stanford, Caltech, to name a few)…those people do not want to bother teaching at a high level. They currently teach the most well prepared freshmen organic and choose to water it down below that of the most difficult sophomore sections despite the fact that frosh ochem has a higher percentage of prospective chemistry majors. This tells me that they are content with giving the chem majors a disadvantage versus more traditional track chemistry majors which is just sad and definitely suggests that they would not do an honors level course for any group of students. Honors would be limited to the two lecturers I alluded to (and maybe one more guy who is at DARPA no to say the least. At least his teaching is indeed higher than most by a longshot). I don’t think he returns until Spring 2016 or fall 2017 if he returns at all…and his research back at Emory…slipping). In fact, I’m at GSU for my MS, and they have a similar thing going on. Lecturers tend to direct the honors or higher intensity sections of intermediate and advanced courses. I believe this pattern is replicated at many other schools as well. I looked at this, and with exception of a few tippy top schools that employ lecturerers much less (maybe including UCal), this was common practice even at selectives.
@ucbalumnus : Interestingly, Law Schools, especially top ones are known to keep a lot of data about the academics at many UG institutions, especially competitive ones, but I imagine they can take it into account because of the smaller applicant pool. Law Schools apparently know how to comb through a GPA pretty well and will often correlate a GPA in a certain discipline with past Law School performance of students from whatever UG institution. Allows Law Schools to be more picky and nuanced in a sense, though still VERY numbers driven…seems they try harder to find meaning in the numbers which they must due to I think the lack of an interview process everywhere.
Med schools are more: “Hard numbers first, then 2ndary, then interview” to extend the weeding process.
“I am not sure how liberal arts majors compare, do all schools produce graduates who can think critically, read high level scholarship, and write and speak persuasively and at a high quality level?”
No. Not even close. This isn’t universal among Ivy grads, either, though it’s a lot better than average.
In the liberal arts, once the initial cut has been made at admissions, there is virtually no selection effect (i.e. weeding out, as in what you’re talking about in engineering) so everything comes down to treatment effect.
That in turn becomes rather difficult to talk about given the freedom many liberal arts majors have in designing their own schedules. Outside of a few schools with intensive cores (Columbia, UChicago, St. John’s) or writing programs (Hamilton, Hampden-Sydney) it’s not easy to point to a unifying experience, let alone the effects it has.
I mean I think I can point to a unifying intellectual experience that I and my peers got at Harvard out of one semester of expos and some mix-and-match gen ed classes. But I’d be hard pressed to articulate it, let alone compare it to an ABET program or measure it in a study.
@NavalTradition : Which majors at Harvard must complete Social Studies 10 (I think?)? I’ve heard that that is usually quite intensive and can create some intellectual community and set some standards.
Social Studies 10 is required of - and I believe open to - only concentrators in Social Studies. It is as you describe, in my (outside) observation.
Social Studies is an honors-only concentration as well - you have to apply. That and the similarly honors-only Hist and Lit (concentration of a cousin of mine who is big in management consulting now, as well as of the current owner of the New Republic) are very well-respected among recruiters, and for good reason.
EDIT: Conan O’Brien was hist and lit as well.
@NavalTradition I love how places like Harvard have honors-tracks…that is quite amazing for a private school. I think Princeton, Yale, and Chicago have similar things happening in the social sciences and humanities. Fortunately, my school has begun to establish lots of undergraduate research fellowships for those in humanities and social sciences majors and it is similar to an honors track I guess, but it lacks the coursework component. It is a start I suppose, because not many selective outside of the Harvard “tier” offer honors tracks in those (or any other) majors for example. Those schools are very effective at offering oppurtunities for their most motivated to become even better academically which is why always defend them when someone tries to bash those schools for grade inflation or underestimate the academics at them for example. Many other schools just are kind of a bore academically for the very top talent (and no, I’m not really just talking score wise…I’m talking more “motivation” and experience wise. HYPMSChiCaltech, and maybe Columbia can academically cater to undergraduates with far higher levels of experience than normal much more easily than other schools with similar score ranges.
At many other selectives, the very top talent are usually the people who must resort to graduate classes pretty early because they run through the course catalog in their major too easily or the coursework is underwhelming to them. At the same time, those schools simply get a fair share of students who are even better and more academically motivated than their scores indicate. Other high scoring schools tend to attract the standard, straight-path high achievers and get less of those types who would willingly choose an honors track earlier on in their undergrad. career (most majors at my school require grad. classes for those doing a thesis but since most qualify for it junior year, it is more of an afterthought and wasn’t the intent of the student from the beginning. If that requirement weren’t there, significantly less students would be taking grad. courses…However, because of it, more students than those at similar caliber schools probably do so so it’s a good policy I think).
Yes, one of the unspoken benefits of the honors-only concentrations (there are a few) is that - because of their extensive and rigorous tutorial component and many required courses - they keep stinky undergrads out of graduate courses for just a little while longer. Harvard has a few mechanisms like this - e.g. requiring the top math freshmen to take Math 55 rather than skipping directly to upper level courses.
One interesting thing I discovered at many other selectives (not HYP and them) is that even if a student enroll in a graduate course (as in a pure graduate course or the graduate section of a mixed course), they are subjected to different requirements such as not having to do a presentation or opting out of a writing assignment. At Emory, if you enrolled in the graduate section, you were required to do the work at the same level of the graduate students and complete all the same assignments. I’m guessing a lot of the more “hardcore” things I’m seeing at Emory are kind of “remnants” of “old Emory” which had a quite stringent and rigorous set of general education requirements (kind of resembling a core but a “little” more flexibility)…and at this point in time, I guess it was going off the dreams of the president preceding the current one who envisioned Emory being more like Chicago than some other “work hard play hard” schools or even other D-3’s like WashU. Of course you can only do but so much when the curriculum and student body has such a “Big 3” pre-professional slant.
These are things I feel tippy tops never had to deal with as much…they had many people content with high paid jobs or even PhD’s after undergrad. Many other “new” schools outside of these are HUGE pre-professional factories, more so than HYP. UG business programs (often at the expense of particularly strong econ. departments) seem to be a correlate of elite schools that ultimately become pre-prof factories. It appears to make a huge difference in terms of the academic offerings and their level, especially outside of science. Like honestly, business school classes even at the top 10 or so programs seem to pale in comparison to the intensity (namely mathematical rigor) of economics courses at schools notarized for their econ. departments. Maybe an exception is Wharton and even then…I am willing to bet that even some of their better courses would not compare to more difficult economics courses at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or Chicago though I suppose the workload in many Wharton courses may be more “meaningful”…I guess. But elite econ. departments are meant for math buffs I guess…and those types will find a way to make their theoretical knowledge practical if they really want to.
Sometimes, the math intensity in economics does not correlate to the school’s admission selectivity.
For example, UC Santa Cruz requires some multivariable calculus for its intermediate microeconomics courses, while some more selective schools like Florida State and Penn State do not even list calculus as a prerequisite (except for the honors course at Penn State which lists single variable calculus – the honors course has far smaller enrollment than the regular course). Georgia Tech’s intermediate microeconomics course does not list any math prerequisites in the catalog, though the syllabus indicates some basic calculus is used.
With respect to Penn, it also offers a liberal arts economics major (in its arts and sciences division) which is math-intensive.
Yes, but I’m wondering how well Wharton, which is undoubtedly the more popular unit compares to elite econ. programs at places like Harvard for example.
And I get what you mean about the lack of admissions selective and its correlation, but I’m just saying that econ. UG programs at places like Harvard and Chicago are likely attracting the math buffs somewhat uniformly and probably would even if their majors weren’t math intensive. Also with Tech, I’m thinking their econ. department suffers more from what I call “B-school syndrome” than Emory’s (whose econ. department is under a lot of scrutiny right now and currently trying to bounce back after temporarily being told to not accept PhD applications). I don’t know if it is recent, but calculus 1 is a pre-req for the intermediate sequence at Emory which apparently has gotten really rough over the past 3 years (I think it is in part because of who they intentionally installed there to teach). Econ. Stats has also acquired quite the reputation because it appears they have intentionally allowed an insanely rigorous instructor teach most of the sections each year (that course uses higher levels of math than single variable calculus (imagine being a poor econ. major at a school not known for econ…and then being hit with proofs involving double integrals and complex sums…course with him is essentially the pchem of econ…the one section left over is a complete joke) and is more of a proofs based course and students pretty much fail the exams…was one of the courses that gave a considerable amount of C’s, D’s, and F’s). I’m guessing the Dean’s actions (which were NOT uniformly good. Some departmental closings were super controversial and the administration was reprimanded by national bodies about how it did it) embarrassed them into shape in many areas (they even recently had an external review conducted).
Unless you’re known for econ…I’m thinking lots of politics (including popularity politics…) can play a role in how good or rigorous these econ. depts. are, as is the case for many social science and humanities programs…but econ. is in that weird place where, depending on the conditions, it being rigorous is still acceptable by both faculty and students. I can’t imagine a Dean’s heavyhanded actions working well on any other non-science department. It would receive the same response as Larry Summers at Harvard tried to solicit gradebooks of select faculty in the humanities at Harvard…
@bernie12 “Yes, but I’m wondering how well Wharton, which is undoubtedly the more popular unit compares to elite econ. programs at places like Harvard for example.”
Penn Wharton does not offer an Economics major. That is in Penn CAS, and is math intensive, and highly ranked. However, students from all schools are encouraged, and often required, to take classes in the other schools.
The Penn Wharton curriculum is much more of a business major than an economics major. See
https://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/files/Curriculum_Worksheet_2010_and_Later.pdf
In terms of math intensity, the required math is second semester single variable calculus (MATH 104, although Penn calls it “calculus part I” based on the assumption of students entering with high school calculus, or MATH 110 for business majors). Intermediate economics is not required.
The Penn economics major is much more math intensive, according to
https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/undergraduate-program/economics-major/course-requirements
Multivariable calculus (MATH 114 or 115; Penn calls it “calculus part II”) is required for the major and is a prerequisite for the intermediate economics courses (ECON 101, 102) as well as statistics for economics (ECON 103) and econometrics (ECON 104).
Some economics departments offer a choice of intermediate economics courses with more or less math. Examples:
Harvard: multivariable calculus versus single variable calculus
Berkeley: multivariable calculus versus single variable calculus
Penn State: single variable calculus versus no calculus
UC Santa Cruz: both options use multivariable differential calculus
UC Irvine: multivariable differential calculus and linear algebra versus single variable calculus
Yeah, I for some reason thought Wharton was so exceptional vs. other business schools that it maybe required more math or upwards to intermediate economics. I was thinking that at least some of the exceptionalism was coming from different requirements, but my guess is that it is the quality of the courses and projects that come along with it I guess. Other than its reputation and powerhouse faculty, I thought there were other major differences with Wharton’s UG program. Guess not, though the second semester of calculus is a little different from say, GBS which requires a stupid Calc. 1 class (literally most are so watered down that I think AP was better and we aren’t the only school. I feel as if the 2nd semester should be required so that they learn integration techniques and summations better). Luckily financial accounting and DSci are pre-reqs and the latter has enough analytical rigor to whip some students into shape.
Perhaps the exceptionalism in reputation and prestige is due to admission selectivity, just like the high reputation and prestige generally of highly selective schools.
Yeah, I guess…it’s just that Wharton maintains its allure today despite schools such as WashU’s business school having students with similar or slightly better stats. WashU isn’t the only one, there are maybe 2-3 more that are pretty close (mid-high 1400 range for the b-school). I feel like if that is so shiny to students then the allure of the UG program should wane vs. others, though its location in that part of the northeast is of course a huge advantage because of recruiting from companies located up north. That effect is hard to compete with considering the huge chunk of those from the midatlantic that attend elite schools and can sometimes only see themselves back in the midatlantic, particularly the northeast post-grad. And most of all, the more prestigious companies are ultimately headquartered there so people will take the prestige over a competitive offer elsewhere (like if you were offered 60-65k from a company in Atlanta vs. 70k at JP Morgan…despite how much farther 60-65k takes you in the south, you’ll take the other offer I would imagine. Note this is just a random hypothetical as I know so little about BBA placement other than the median start salaries of some of these programs)
@bernie12 “WashU’s business school having students with similar or slightly better stats”
Penn students have the highest avg. high school gpa in the Ivy League, plus strong ECs. Penn tends to put a bit less weight on SAT scores.
If you only look at SAT scores, Penn students may not look as strong as they are.
From what I have seen, and from what my kids have experienced, the more selective colleges and universities place much more emphasis on critical analysis and writing, and discussions, and provide more feedback to students on their writing and analysis. The less selective schools are more likely to use multiple choice tests, or teach straight from the textbook - particularly if they are using part-time adjuncts who are told to follow a standard curriculum.
It has often been said that you learn more from fellow students than from your professors. That is particularly true with discussion classes, or group projects, or classes where there are study groups. Employers value employees who know how to work in small groups, which is more likely to happen at a selective college.
The more selective colleges are more likely to have more motivated and well-prepared students, which allows a professor to be much more demanding of the students.
(My Dad was a college prof at a non-selective college, and he greatly preferred teaching the evening classes of adults who had gone back to the college, because they were motivated, vs. the daytime classes of younger students who in some cases were just killing time.)
Many of the selective universities will have large classes in the first two years. However, they will often have highly qualified grad students leading discussions. Some grad students may be teaching freshman math or writing classes. These grad students may be a few steps away from earning a doctorate and seeking a full-time college teaching job. (However, I’ve also heard of some less motivated grad students, particularly if they are only interested in research and not getting a teaching position).
The more selective colleges are also likely to have students from a much wider geographic area and from other countries, which provides another dimension to learning.
My son and I each had the opportunity to graduate from a selective university. I only had mediocre profs in 2 of my classes, and I hadn’t heard my son complain about any of his profs. Meanwhile, my daughter attended a much less selective college and had several mediocre profs outside of her major. Fortunately, that college is excellent for her major.
I’m basically arguing that the stats ranges and maybe even EC’s at least at WashU are going to be similar…unfortunately “the best in the Ivy League” isn’t that special anymore as there are many schools outside of the Ivies that are comparable to lower and middle Ivies and of course a few comparable to very top Ivies. Also using GPA assumes the Penn students are pulled in the same numbers from the same High schools as, say Harvard students, which may or may not be true (perhaps those from elite high schools who are interested in finance or business would still prefer Harvard, Yale, or Princeton).
Your statement does, however, reiterate the point that places like WashU “stats whore it up” when it comes to selection…at least it appears that way. Less selective schools stats wise (such as Penn, Duke, and JHU) outperform it output wise in many key areas. In fact, it performs lower than my alma mater (which is less selective than schools ranked significantly below it in USNEWs I believe) and many of the schools that rank lower than it as well. So you do point out an important thing, different schools are selecting for different characteristics, some unfortunately may have more superficial selection than others and thus things like your academic and intellectual environment and performance in certain outputs (like national scholarships) may ultimately pay the price and be underwhelming versus selectivity. This is one thing I’ve picked up on and talk a lot about too. It is possible to select a lower scoring student body that is more motivated or willing to take on a challenge than a higher scoring student body at another school. In addition, while we don’t like to give certain selective institutions credit, some may be flat out more effective at making the most of their students…they don’t really need them to come in looking perfect on paper so much as “excellent and ready to go!”. The school with the 1500 SAT average may perform below the one with the 1350-1450 average if the students at the 1500 school matriculated because of, for example, the relatively relaxed or “well-rounded” atmosphere seen at some selective privates in particular. Duke and Stanford are of course exceptions but both also have many signature academic programs that are good enough to attract students on alone. Some of the other places I allude to don’t really have UG programs that they are truly known for and the ones which they are known for are not usually the ones attracting the most motivated students. One such private school has a “pre-professional studies major” and another has a huge chunk of students in “Communications” which would make since if you were as large as Cornell and partially functioned as a public school but is quite unusual for a more medium sized private with exceptionally high stats.
WashU doesn’t really have that problem as its students are often as serious as those at other D-3 schools so maybe they just need to fix their scholarship liason or some other things. They should have an environment more conducive to greater success in such competitions, but when I see a school with 1500 average but only 6/49 Fulbright winners (and this number likely includes graduate students), I kind of wonder.
@bernie12 “(perhaps those from elite high schools who are interested in finance or business would still prefer Harvard, Yale, or Princeton).”
In my experience, the best students with an interest in finance may well choose Harvard over Penn, but are likely to pick Penn over Yale or Princeton. Columbia (best Wall Street proximity) will get some of these students too. Additionally, a significant number of the best students with an interest in finance may well decide on an undergraduate major in engineering, or a dual degree. Students will also tend to gravitate to whichever school feels like the best fit.