Interesting Article in our newspaper about the quality of various colleges . . .

[jeri]

This is by Kathleen Parker adn I can't link it, but since she's so well-known, you should be able to find it. Go to www.whatwilltheylearn.com to see that the public colleges are doing a better job at requiring basic skills than the private colleges, adn there is more bang for the buck. Not sure if I agree with all that she says for a very bright, motivated student who might be unchallenged by the basics, but it looks like an interesting take on higher level education.

 

Jeri

[3littlekeets]

Yikes,

 

I have to say that the scores are VERY misleading. Take for instance the "A" list. I know for a fact that one school on that list was in the very recent past a community college. The profs there vary greatly in skill and training, and the students there are a hodge podge of community college kids, kids waiting to get the U. who couldn't get in the first round, and non-trads. It is rarely if ever anyone's first choice. The rigor is horribly lacking! The faculty turnover is HIGH, and the graduation rate is LOW.

 

On the other hand, some schools with B or C rankings because they don't require "US History" do require either 1 year of US or World, depending on what the students have had in their high schools, or what their major is; the same with foreign language -- it isn't required "U" wide -- but is in many if not all "majors," kwim?

 

This is an interesting "take," but I wouldn't put much stock in it.

[Melinda in VT]

Yikes,

 

I have to say that the scores are VERY misleading. Take for instance the "A" list. I know for a fact that one school on that list was in the very recent past a community college. The profs there vary greatly in skill and training, and the students there are a hodge podge of community college kids, kids waiting to get the U. who couldn't get in the first round, and non-trads. It is rarely if ever anyone's first choice. The rigor is horribly lacking! The faculty turnover is HIGH, and the graduation rate is LOW.

 

On the other hand, some schools with B or C rankings because they don't require "US History" do require either 1 year of US or World, depending on what the students have had in their high schools, or what their major is; the same with foreign language -- it isn't required "U" wide -- but is in many if not all "majors," kwim?

 

This is an interesting "take," but I wouldn't put much stock in it.

 

:iagree:

 

If you read the specific comments, they won't give you points for a category if the requirement can be filled with a class with a "narrow focus." In other words, if a student enters college with a good survey-level knowledge of the subject matter and wants to dig into a subarea, that's bad.

 

The rankings seem to reward colleges that are not geared toward advanced students.

[LibraryLover]

It seems they are suggesting that a focus in a field of study is bad.

Edited August 16, 2010 by LibraryLover

[jeri]

but what I think she is getting at is that there are perfectly good colleges that focus on the basics for a well-rounded education (incl. writing, history, econ, math, etc.). She is merely pointing out that just because your child gets into and attends a very high level college/uni, it's no guarantee that they will get solid courses. As I said, though, for a student who wants to be challenged, perhaps this isn't a good assessment. Remember, she's a conservative columnist and as a fellow conservative, I can't believe the run-up in higher ed colleges! Not sure what we are getting that;s so much better than when we were in college many moons ago.

 

Jeri

[Melinda in VT]

She is merely pointing out that just because your child gets into and attends a very high level college/uni, it's no guarantee that they will get solid courses.

 

I don't see that the rankings talk about "solid" classes. The rankings seem based on "basic" classes. I wouldn't expect a "very high level college" to focus on basic classes. Their students should have had the basics in high school.

[Crimson Wife]

Sorry, but there's no flippin' way that the education at CSU East Bay merits a "B" while Stanford rates a "C" and UC Berkeley rates an "F". I've taken classes at all 3 and the challenge level is what one would expect (Stanford the hardest, followed closely by UC Berkeley, and CSU EB basically being a joke).

 

If I were a parent, I'd make sure my kid had a solid academic foundation before he/she ever set foot on campus and pay much greater weight to the following stats:

 

Median salary starting/10 years post-graduation (bachelor's only):

Stanford $60k/$119k

UC Berkeley $53k/$109k

CSU East Bay $48k/$79k

 

And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that fewer than half of CSU EB students even earn a bachelor's to begin with vs. 90% at UC Berkeley and 95% at Stanford.

 

Now, if she were arguing that Stanford isn't worth the price premium over UC Berkeley, that I could see. But CSU EB isn't remotely in the same league as the other 2 schools.

[Melinda in VT]

Remember, she's a conservative columnist and as a fellow conservative, I can't believe the run-up in higher ed colleges!

 

I'm a liberal and I can't believe the run-up either.

 

The more I think about this article, the more I realize I just have a fundamental disagreement with Parker about higher-level education. She seems to think colleges should treat university students like kids, whereas I prefer for them to be treated more like adults.

[mcconnellboys]

You know, I'm looking at this for schools that I know and it's just wrong. Core subjects are required at most of these schools and I'm aware of courses students are taking that meet this requirement. So this looks way off base, to me, at least for my own state....

[Old Dominion Heather]

It is WAY off for my state as well. JMU gets a B while William and Mary gets a C and UVA gets a D???

[Dmmetler]

Mine, too. There is no way that ETSU or TSU get A's when Vanderbilt gets an F!

 

I think it's more that these are middle/lower tier schools that have more students with less than ideal backgrounds, and that they therefore set their requirements based on the expectation that most students will not have had those general ed classes in high school at a solid level (and that those who do, probably have taken them as college classes via the AP program or a local college). The higher tier schools don't require such classes because, to be blunt, you won't get in without having taken them.

 

I will never forget walking into a college bookstore and seeing Saxon Algebra 1/2. (admittedly, it WAS for a non-credit class, but still...) I think that was when I realized that not all colleges were created equal.

[mcconnellboys]

Yeah, here's what they say they use by way of rating:

 

"What Will They Learn?SM rates each college on whether the institution (or, in many cases, the Arts & Sciences or Liberal Arts divisions) requires seven core subjects: Composition, Literature, Foreign Language, U.S. Government or History, Economics, Mathematics, or Natural or Physical Science. The grade is based on a detailed review of the latest publicly-available online course catalogs.

 

The fact that a college has requirements called Literature or Mathematics does not necessarily mean that students will actually study those subjects. "Distribution requirements" on most campuses permit students to pick from a wide range of courses that often are narrow or even outside the stated field altogether. To determine whether institutions have a solid core curriculum, we defined success in each of the seven subject areas outlined as follows:

 

Composition. A college writing class focusing on grammar, style, clarity, and argument. These courses should be taught by instructors trained to evaluate and teach writing. “Across-the-curriculum†and “writing intensive†courses taught in disciplines other than English do not count if they constitute the only component of the writing requirement. Credit is not given for remedial classes, or if students may test out of the requirement via SAT or ACT scores or departmental tests.

 

[so if a course is not labeled as "English" composition, they don't count it. And how on earth can they tell from the online course catalog how well the instructors are trained to evaluate and teach writing?]

 

Literature. A literature survey course. Narrow, single-author, or esoteric courses do not count for this requirement, but introductions to broad subfields (such as British or Latin American literature) do.

 

[sooooo, is Greek Mythology too narrow? Who decides the basis for "esoteric"?]

 

Foreign Language. Competency at the intermediate level, defined as at least three semesters of college-level study in any foreign language, three years of high school work or an appropriate examination score.

 

[both schools in my area that I'm looking at which are not showing this as a core requirement absolutely do require it, so I'm at a loss....]

 

U.S. Government or History. A course in either American history or government with enough breadth to give a broad sweep of American history and institutions. Narrow, niche courses do not count for the requirement, nor do courses that only focus on a particular state or region.

 

[i do not recall any colleges requiring specifically American history. But again, how do they conclude from an online catalog survey that a course does or does not provide "enough breadth"?]

 

Economics. A course covering basic economic principles, preferably an introductory micro- or macroeconomics course taught by faculty from the economics or business departments.

 

[This is the one area where I think they are correct. I don't recall looking at a single college in our search that required this.]

 

Mathematics. A college-level course in mathematics. Specific topics may vary, but must involve study beyond the level of intermediate algebra. Logic classes may count if they are focused on abstract logic. Computer science courses count if they involve programming or advanced study. Credit is not given for remedial classes, or if students may test out of the requirement via SAT or ACT scores.

 

[This is a requirement at the schools we looked at. I have no idea why it's not shown on their charts....]

 

Natural or Physical Science. A course in biology, geology, chemistry, physics, or environmental science, preferably with a laboratory component. Overly narrow courses and courses with weak scientific content are not counted."

 

[This is also a requirement at all my area schools. Again, how do they determine content and breadth?]

[LibraryLover]

It is WAY off for my state as well. JMU gets a B while William and Mary gets a C and UVA gets a D???

 

 

Yeah.

 

I played around with the site for a mere few seconds before I roared with laughter.

Edited August 17, 2010 by LibraryLover

[MBM]

I tried Illinois. It seems off to me, too.

 

University of Chicago gets a B.

Southern Illinois U gets a C.

Northwestern University gets an F.

 

[LibraryLover]

Yes. It seems that schools with the greatest number of the most basic classes score an A. It also appears that schools which allow students to choose their own field of study from the beginning score an F. Further, schools with more 'narrow' offerrings are not rated at all. MIT, just for one, is not even in their data base.

Edited August 17, 2010 by LibraryLover

[MBM]

Yeah.

 

I played around with the site for a mere few seconds before I roared with laughter.

 

I laughed, too! I'm going to send the link to my daughter who went to Northwestern which was rated a big F. LOL.

 

My school was a B. :001_tt2:

[Rivka]

I went to a rigorous liberal arts college which is often referred to as "grad school for undergrads." All freshman and transfer students are required to take an intensive, year-long, cross-disciplinary course in Greek and Roman Humanities. Every student is required to produce a senior thesis based on original scholarship.

 

It is third in the nation in the percentage of graduates who earn Ph.D.s. - higher even than MIT. Only one other liberal arts college has produced more Rhodes Scholars.

 

It scored a D. :lol:

 

Honestly, to me a college which *requires* broad survey courses in multiple areas is a college which doubts its students' high school preparation. So of course the "big name" highly selective colleges are going to score lower. If they thought you needed a bunch of basic courses, they wouldn't have admitted you.

[jeri]

but now I feel like an idiot since I went to one of the national military academies (which is not among the 700 or so they scored) and they all got an A! Maybe they're not as good as we think . . . LOL

 

jeri

[3littlekeets]

but now I feel like an idiot since I went to one of the national military academies (which is not among the 700 or so they scored) and they all got an A! Maybe they're not as good as we think . . . LOL

 

jeri

 

 

My guess is that *foreign language* and *U.S. history* are taught at bit differently at the academies than at Wonky Donky State :lol:. I wouldn't doubt that eduction you have for one moment! :D

[MBM]

but now I feel like an idiot since I went to one of the national military academies (which is not among the 700 or so they scored) and they all got an A! Maybe they're not as good as we think . . . LOL

 

jeri

 

My husband went to the following:

 

USMA -- A

Cooper Union (Master's, EE) -- D!

U of Chicago (PhD, stats) -- B

 

Cooper Union a D? Really? It was by far my husband's favorite and most rigorous school. Even today he waxes on about his amazing math and engineering professors...and the classes they had at McSorley's. LOL.

 

Well, I won't be bookmarking that site!