<p>What is meant by the term “academic quality” in the college search process?</p>
<p>In many debates on CC, the term “academic quality” is offered as a reason to pick College X over College Y. But what is meant by this term and how should a student interpret this in terms that will relate to his/her prospective undergraduate academic experience?</p>
<p>My personal view is that the undergraduate academic experience is most heavily shaped by the following four factors:</p>
<li>the quality of ones student peers (Stronger students are preferred)</li>
<li>the size of the classroom in which you learn (smaller classes are better than larger ones)</li>
<li>the quality of the instruction that you receive (Teaching by professors is preferred over teaching by TAs)</li>
<li>the depth of the institutions resources and their willingness to commit them to support undergraduate students (more money is better than less)</li>
</ol>
<p>Some will claim that these factors will not automatically produce an experience with “academic quality.” I agree, but I also believe that high “academic quality,” as it relates to the undergraduate academic experience, is not achievable for the student body at large without high marks across the board in the four factors. </p>
<p>What do you think “academic quality” means and how should a prospective undergraduate student apply this in their college search process?</p>
<p>That seems like a pretty good list. Each element has the virtue of being more or less easily quantifiable.</p>
<p>There are, however, some important factors that are not so easily quantifiable. Example: Does a school have a principled, well-implemented curriculum model, one that reflects a clear educational mission? This would be hard to assess, but sometimes you know it when you see it.</p>
<p>Another approach to academic quality would be to try to measure “outcomes”. For example, look at graduate and professional school placements, or the number or graduates in some presumably worthy pursuits such as the Peace Corps or Teach for America.</p>
<p>A school should be able to expose real flaws in yourself and bluntly show you that you are not the best you think you are (AKA, kick you off the high horse coming out of high school thinking you are the s hit) and show you that you are capable of growing, developing, and maturing into a better person.</p>
<p>A school should be rigorous to the point where you can experience real positive growth. Not like Hopkins where it’s rigorous to the point of suicide. 
Hopkins is not like high school all over again, I can tell you that…</p>
<p>That is my opinion . What do you guys think about rigor?</p>
<p>I would also include the availability of internships/coops or undergraduate research.</p>
<p>rigor = good</p>
<p>hawkette, I agree with the criteria you have selected but it sounds like you described most selective LAC’s (small classes, classes taught by professors, commitment to undergraduate students). What about some of the top national universities, including the Ivy colleges, that may have larger classes, use TA’s and have graduate programs, but have outstanding students? Would these schools be excluded under your criteria? </p>
<p>I guess I have a more subjective definition of academic quality. I would say that any school that is going to get the most out of me, whether they are rated #1 or #50 or lower, would be the best. If the school has the best faculty, resources, faculty/student ratio, etc. but is not going to teach in a style that might be best for me (lecture vs. collaborative,etc.) it will likely not offer me academic quality, although it may for many others. I think it is a highly personal opinion that can not be easily defined.</p>
<p>Its relative to the individual student and school. How will an individual student perform in a particular academic setting? What is best for THAT student? SAT scores dont tell the entire picture. Socialization skills matter. Being in a room of nerdy geeks with greasy hair and who don’t shower but once a week? (an attempt at humor…but this happened to me! It was AWFUL!) Or being in a classroom full of smart but not brilliant kids who are engaged with the professor, bringing insights and experiences, and helping the professor enhance the material? I pick the latter course hands down. </p>
<p>However, as a general rule, I place quality of faculty-teaching ability, not just credentials, as the most important factor.</p>
<p>I’m bumping this thread because I really am curious to know what people mean when they say “academic quality.” </p>
<p>How do you measure “academic quality” and how do you decide that ABC College’s “academic quality” is better than that of XYZ University?</p>
<p>^^ Me, I’d rather be in a room with nerdy geeks–who cares whether they have greasy hair?–who are brilliant AND insightfully engaged with the professor.</p>
<p>I think that “academic quality” is slightly subjective. What I mean is, there are definitely some schools with better academics than others. But not all students thrive in the same atmosphere. If you consider a positive learning atmosphere FOR YOU in the mix of academic quality, like I said, some parts of it get subjective. For me, a school with a strong academic quality meets each of the following criteria:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The students are bright, hard working, and interested. Personally, I prefer students who are part “learning for the sake of learning” and part pragmatic. Nothing too intellectual like UChicago, nothing too pragmatic like Wharton. That said, I’m a potential liberal arts major.</p></li>
<li><p>The quality of the classroom in which learning takes place is high. I don’t mind large lectures as long as there are labs and recitations that are generally agreed to be interesting and fulfilling. Classes must get smaller as time goes on; “class discussions encouraged” among non lecture courses also a must. A whole courseload should never be lectures and TAs should never teach more than recitations or labs.</p></li>
<li><p>Professors are from all walks of life. I’d like to see a mix of professors. I’d like to see some who are full-time academics and others who have had excellent experience in their fields or who are adjunct professors. I’d like to see more academics than adjunct professors or part time professors. This plays along with my “good mix of learning for the sake of learning and pragmatic learning” ideal.</p></li>
<li><p>The university (in my case, not a college) is focused on undergraduates and is willing and able to efficiently administer resources to its students, handle and promote the use of up and coming technology, listen to student concerns, and promote student academic and extracurricular wellbeing.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As you can see, I took all of the OPs factors and personalized them a bit. I would also add these:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The school “[has] a principled, well-implemented curriculum model that reflects a clear educational mission” (post #2). My preferred “educational mission” would be part intellectual and part pragmatic (obviously, these are and should be overlapping spheres). I’d like to see a school with a rigorous curriculum but that has room to breathe (this depends on the level of the student, of course, but JHU and Cornell are pretty solid smothering environmental). The school should have a defined distributional requirement general education program with a lot of options. I would prefer a school with a lot of area for concentration; i.e., within the major or opportunities for minor or double majors. </p></li>
<li><p>The residential life is also a place for learning. This is usually optional. I’d like to see places that offer themed living, First Year Experiences, directed orientations, Common Conversations, etc. I’d prefer that these be available but not smothering. I mean, you learn an awful lot by just having fun and getting to know other people, don’t get me wrong. But these are really cool options. I’d also like to see a school that has ALL KINDS of diversity, including but not limited to diversity of race, geography, homeland, and socioeconomic status. Every person on a campus brings diversity. But there’s something to be said about other factors.</p></li>
</ol>