Big University or Small Liberal Arts College
Xeones
small liberal arts college seems to recommend going to a small liberal arts
college. Why is this so? In addition, if you have any feelings to the
contrary, please state them, and tell me why.
Thanks for the help,
-Sean
Greg Dyer
looking at small liberal arts colleges, so I'm kind of biased. But, based
on my observations, I think you get a lot more attention as a person, can
focus more on discussion in seminar type courses(not so important for
math/science, but important for humanities type stuff), and, my personal
favorite, are involved in a closely knit community. For some people, the
same benefits I see are the drawbacks of small colleges. Also, if you are
at a small completely undergrad college, you get access to all that is
available. As far as applications, make sure if you put effort into the
application. A big test score like you have is good, but they look
carefully at and place a greater emphasis on other aspects like grades,
courses, extracurriculars, talents and recomendations. I'm sure you've
already heard this speech though . . . .
Xeones <swe...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:7u30p9$o93$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
mrfuss
other advisees for an informal chat. He was a very famous professor, whose
textbook I had used in the high school honors program at UCLA. I was
awestruck to meet him and could not wait for his first words of wisdom,
which turned out to be.... "Leave Berkeley as soon as possible and transfer
to a good liberal arts college. We train graduate students here. We do not
educate undergraduates. Training and education are different things. Our own
research and the training of graduate students will always take priority
with our faculty. Go to a school where undergraduates come first."
We all disregarded his advice, because Berkeley was the most exciting place
on earth to be if you were 18 in 1967. In retrospect, though, he was
probably right.
Every large university touts the advantage of having faculty who are on the
cutting edge of research (some are, some aren't), who will bring their
enthusiasm to their undergraduate lecture halls. Sometimes this happens;
more often is does not. If I were going to school today, I'd opt for the
liberal arts college.
Marshall Fuss
Thore Bjerklund Karlsen
>Everyone that I've spoken to who has attended both a big University and a
>small liberal arts college seems to recommend going to a small liberal arts
>college. Why is this so? In addition, if you have any feelings to the
>contrary, please state them, and tell me why.
I go to UT, which I have been told is the largest university in the US. I
don't know if that is correct, but it is certainly one of the largest.
What I found, to my surprise, was that the classes were smaller than I was
used to. Back in Norway, most of my classes were around 450 students. Here,
they are around 100-200 for the classes I'm taking now. I personally don't
mind large classes, though I know a lot of people don't like them. Why, I
don't know.
As for the size of the school itself, I have no complaints. I have been very
well taken care of. UT has a lot of students, but they also have a lot of
staff to take care of the needs of those students.
I guess you have to consider your own preferences. I like size and variety,
so UT is perfect for me. I like living in a large city (with a very nice
climate :) and going to a large school. I can imagine the likes of Cornell
and Dartmouth to be hell on earth for me, but for you it might be a good
choice. Just don't let the size alone scare you from choosing a large
university. Some schools may not handle their size very well, but for others
the size doesn't really matter. Listen to what the students at the
particular schools say.
--
Thore B. Karlsen # sid...@mail.utexas.edu
Man has always sacrificed truth to his vanity, comfort and
advantage. He lives by make-believe.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
Mark
Personally, however, my favorite choice was somewhere between a tiny liberal
arts college and a huge research university. You have to admit that elite
universities offer far, far more outside of the classroom than any liberal arts
colleges. Inside the classroom, some unversities offer more intimate
educations than others, but almost all universities offer a wider range of
courses than liberal arts colleges.
Also, the top universities apparently attract higher quality students than do
top liberal arts colleges. I was a regular of the Intel and Westinghouse
science competitions, as well as some top debating contests, and over 90% of
the students each year went to elite private national universities like MIT,
Ivy Leagues, Duke, Caltech, Northwestern, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, etc. The
exception may be Swarthmore College, which has a much higher percentage of
National Merit Scholars than does any other liberal arts college.
I had to choose from among Swarthmore (the only liberal arts college to which I
applied) and several top universities and in the end chose Yale because after
extensive research I saw it as by far the best compromise between the two. I
am very satisfied with the quality of teaching and size of classes here, which
are similar to what you would find at a liberal arts college (although there
are a few large lectures taught by amazing, world-renowned teachers). Yale
College has a long tradition of close student-faculty interaction and is
physically centered around the college; interestingly, to me it usually feels
much more like a liberal arts college than a university.
I realize that some students will not want to attend any type of university,
and encourage everyone to take a good look at liberal arts colleges. They are
wonderful places to learn. Keep in mind that at the other extreme are students
who choose to go to large universities *because* they are overflowing with
thousands of students.
In the end, although the benefits of excellent teaching should not be
overlooked, it is up to each student to decide based on his/her personal goals
and preferences.
Mark
Yale col. 2002
Greg Dyer wrote:
> I'm going through the application process right now and I am only seriously
> looking at small liberal arts colleges, so I'm kind of biased. But, based
> on my observations, I think you get a lot more attention as a person, can
> focus more on discussion in seminar type courses(not so important for
> math/science, but important for humanities type stuff), and, my personal
> favorite, are involved in a closely knit community. For some people, the
> same benefits I see are the drawbacks of small colleges. Also, if you are
> at a small completely undergrad college, you get access to all that is
> available. As far as applications, make sure if you put effort into the
> application. A big test score like you have is good, but they look
> carefully at and place a greater emphasis on other aspects like grades,
> courses, extracurriculars, talents and recomendations. I'm sure you've
> already heard this speech though . . . .
>
> Xeones <swe...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:7u30p9$o93$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> > Everyone that I've spoken to who has attended both a big University and a
> > small liberal arts college seems to recommend going to a small liberal
> arts
> > college. Why is this so? In addition, if you have any feelings to the
> > contrary, please state them, and tell me why.
> >
KSG
mrfuss wrote:
>
>
> Every large university touts the advantage of having faculty who are on the
> cutting edge of research (some are, some aren't), who will bring their
> enthusiasm to their undergraduate lecture halls. Sometimes this happens;
> more often is does not. If I were going to school today, I'd opt for the
> liberal arts college.
>
I strongly disagree... I think that there tends to be self-selection bias and
squeaky wheel syndrome that takes place when you talk about small liberal arts
schools. The only people who are likely to ever go to a liberal arts school are
probaby those who would like to attend one. I personally even think UCSD is too
small and intimate for me... I'd like a megaplex like UCLA or Berkeley around an
urban center (my fondness of Cal Tech seems to run counter to this thinking, but
I like Cal Tech despite its size... and it's hardly what most consider a liberal
arts university). I tend to be very "urban" and I doubt most small liberal arts
schools would be all that interesting to me. I'd probably go crazy.
--
Peace,
KSG
Droppin' Science in REAL AUDIO on KSDT Sundays 8pm-10pm (PST)
ARCHIVED SHOWS: http://scw.ucsd.edu/droppinscience
Personal: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~kgatlin
Greg Dyer
liberal
> arts college and a huge research university. You have to admit that elite
> universities offer far, far more outside of the classroom than any liberal
arts
> colleges. Inside the classroom, some unversities offer more intimate
> educations than others, but almost all universities offer a wider range of
> courses than liberal arts colleges.
>
on your resume, just a very solid overall record with only a few exciting
awards etc. Thus, I am pretty much ruled out of those top flight
universities because I am deficient in some areas. So I have to look to
smaller colleges that will examine my intangible qualities for a chance.
That may not be true for many other people, but it is for me. Moreover, I
am under the impression at many of the top Universities the competition is
intense. That just wouldn't suit me, or many others for that matter.
Julie Hopson
mrfuss wrote:
> In my first week as a student at Berkeley, I met with my adviser and his
> other advisees for an informal chat. He was a very famous professor, whose
> textbook I had used in the high school honors program at UCLA. I was
> awestruck to meet him and could not wait for his first words of wisdom,
> which turned out to be.... "Leave Berkeley as soon as possible and transfer
> to a good liberal arts college. We train graduate students here. We do not
> educate undergraduates. Training and education are different things. Our own
> research and the training of graduate students will always take priority
> with our faculty. Go to a school where undergraduates come first."
>
> We all disregarded his advice, because Berkeley was the most exciting place
> on earth to be if you were 18 in 1967. In retrospect, though, he was
> probably right.
>
> Every large university touts the advantage of having faculty who are on the
> cutting edge of research (some are, some aren't), who will bring their
> enthusiasm to their undergraduate lecture halls. Sometimes this happens;
> more often is does not. If I were going to school today, I'd opt for the
> liberal arts college.
>
> Marshall Fuss
>
I agree! I went to Missouri in the sixties (for journalism, natch) and one of
my mandatory introductory classes was taught by a dead guy. No kidding. (Big
clue: The guy had no office hours.) There must have been 500 of us in the A&S
Auditorium staring at dozens of television sets mounted around the perimeter.
It was deadly.
The saving grace was the availability of (smaller, seminar-style) honors
college courses, worth checking out if a larger school makes more sense, as I
believed it to be in my case. (In retrospect, I'd save J-School for graduate
study...but that's a whole 'nother strand....)
Christopher Pound
>Everyone that I've spoken to who has attended both a big University and a
>small liberal arts college seems to recommend going to a small liberal arts
>college. Why is this so? In addition, if you have any feelings to the
>contrary, please state them, and tell me why.
Personally, I enjoyed the heck out of Big State U.* as an undergrad,
where it was trivial to meet people with common interests, get
dates, etc. Where else can you find 40,000 people your own age
concentrated in two square miles with a very much smaller intervening
population of adults?? It was great! Stack up the furniture,
send out an email, and voila, you've got over a hundred of your (and
I mean this) closest friends packed into your one bedroom apartment for a
dance party -- and the neighbors don't care, because they do it too
sometimes. You like hanging out with people majoring in the same
thing you are? Great -- there are hundreds of them, if not thousands.
You tend to make friends who're much older than you are? Great --
you've got several thousand grad students to meet. Make friends
with a grad student in your major, and you're likely to learn more
than from a genius undergrad in your major; the genius figures stuff
out quickly, but the grad student has probably read/done more. You want
to take classes with superstar faculty? Great -- their graduate
seminars are probably open to you, if you're up to it, and the
graduate seminars are often pretty intimate. Also, the upper
divison liberal arts classes on more obscure topics are usually
pretty small; I took at least a dozen undergrad-oriented
classes with fewer than 10 students in them. On top of that, it
was trivial to arrange independent study courses, meeting with a faculty
member for about an hour a week one-on-one, once I reached the
point where I could formulate a topic that the professor knew
something about but wasn't teaching in their classes. Professors
often lament the boredom of their office hours -- those are the ones
willing to take you on for an independent study, if they're sure you
won't lame out and put them in the embarrassing position of giving
you a bad grade (or an unearned good grade) in such a personal context.
A big university has a lot more faculty, of course, and thus a
larger number for you to approach in this way. A big university
brings in more visiting speakers -- if you know how to find them.
A big university brings in more visiting rock bands -- and you'll
get to see them for free. A big university is dirt cheap and
often surrounded by stores and restaurants catering to the impoverished
(not to mention nice stores, etc., catering to the many wealthy students).
At a big university, it's not hard to avoid the individuals you hate
(and you're a saint if you don't hate some people by your sophomore
year, not to mention your senior year ...). At a big university,
you can lay around all summer taking classes instead of working
to afford the tuition of a small private college; plus, the
university is still an active place in the summer, so sticking
around is a much more attractive option.
I could go on! This is just off the top of my head! But then again,
everything *bad* you've heard about Big State U. probably is the case.
The bureaucracy is dreadful. Getting into a popular class may literally
be impossible if you're an underclassman or if it's not in your major
area. There are more people to meet, but the same percentage of them
will be total jerks and perhaps a higher percentage will be less
academically-inclined than you might like -- like 'em or not, they're
crawling all over the place, for miles even. Many lower-level classes
will speak to the lowest common denominator (but note that most schools
have crips/rolls/walks/guts, i.e. really easy classes, somewhere on campus).
You're not likely to have a faculty member mentor you through your
first few years, if ever, though you may achieve this if you work at it.
Classes that are large at small schools will be freakin' enormous at
Big State U. (but note that most schools do have large required classes
at one point or another). You will be virtually anonymous on campus,
most of the time, even if you have hundreds of friends. Those are
just some of the drawbacks to Big State U., many of which are not
found at a small liberal arts school.
So, all in all, it really depends on what you're looking for.
I had special standing that allowed me to register for any class
I wanted. I liked anonymity in general but very gregarious
socialization in my choice of contexts. Big State U. was no
problem as far as I was concerned and had a lot to offer.
By no means should you take this as a general statement that
people ought to choose Big State U. over a school where they'll
be guided personally, where someone will make sure they get
a good education and whatever attention they need, where the
crowd isn't so potentially overwhelming or stultifying,
where they don't have to look so hard for the interesting
things happening academically. In fact, my *general*
recommendation would be that you should go to the small liberal
arts school, simply because it's a safer bet -- me not knowing
anything about what environment is right for you. But wow
am I glad *I* didn't go to a relatively small school as an undergrad.
Good luck making your decision!
*University of Florida
--
Christopher Pound (po...@rice.edu)
Dept. of Anthropology, Rice University
Carey Heckman
>arts college and a huge research university.
Mark really wanted to go to Dartmouth, I thought as I read this sentence.
But a few sentences later I discoverd the tired Yale-o-Matic infomercial
was back. Sigh. Can New Haven as "urban paradise" be far behind?
--
Carey Heckman
Stanford Law School
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
c...@stanford.edu http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu
(650) 725-7788 fax: (650) 725-1861
Adam Elman
> If you are me, however, you don't have Intel and Westinghouse science comps
> on your resume, just a very solid overall record with only a few exciting
> awards etc. Thus, I am pretty much ruled out of those top flight
> universities because I am deficient in some areas. So I have to look to
> smaller colleges that will examine my intangible qualities for a chance.
> That may not be true for many other people, but it is for me. Moreover, I
> am under the impression at many of the top Universities the competition is
> intense. That just wouldn't suit me, or many others for that matter.
Most "top flight universities" consider these things as well. It's
silly to consider yourself "ruled out" of any school because you don't
have a Westinghouse competition under your belt. I had a pretty solid
record with not much "exciting" on it, and I got into Stanford. Most
folks I know who have gone to universities I'd consider "top flight"
didn't have anything all that amazing on their applications.
Which is not to dispute the rest of your comments. I found, BTW, that
the competition per se at Stanford was pretty mellow compared to the
stories I've heard from Ivy League schools. But then, I've never been
one to allow myself to feel really competitive anyway, so it just
didn't really impact my life. You mileage may vary.
If you feel you have a "solid overall record," I wouldn't rule out any
schools you'd be interested in applying to.
Just my 2 cents.
Adam Elman
Gary Glen Price
> ...percentage of National Merit Scholars
Mark
Gary Glen Price wrote:
Amherst, Wellesley and Haverford Colleges aren't even on the list?
Mark
> In article <3805194F...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu>,
> Mark <me...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu> wrote:
> >Greg: your posting is very accurate.
> >
> >Personally, however, my favorite choice was somewhere between a tiny liberal
> >arts college and a huge research university.
>
> Mark really wanted to go to Dartmouth, I thought as I read this sentence.
> But a few sentences later I discoverd the tired Yale-o-Matic infomercial
> was back. Sigh.
Sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Heckman Dartmouth '76, right?. I never even looked
at the place, probably because from what I heard in all of my travels it wasn't
even close to a "huge research university" and was still too far from a "tiny
elite liberal arts college." My loss? Oh well, I limited myself to applying to
two Ivy League schools.
> Can New Haven as "urban paradise" be far behind?
Nope. I still think it's the most fascinating and exciting town I've ever lived
in. More books and theaters per person than any city in the United States. New
York City might be a good choice too, but at this time of year, the combination
of Connecticut fall foliage and New Haven's tree-lined streets (New Haven had the
first public tree planting program in the country) is irresistable.
Gary Glen Price
> > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=471773975&fmt=text
Mark wrote:
> Amherst, Wellesley and Haverford Colleges aren't even on the list?
As I cautioned in that posting, the results reported were "from a
still-spotty collection of schools." The NMSC report from which I
obtained counts of 1998 NMSC-sponsored scholarships gave no data for
some schools. I distinctly recall that Amherst was one for which no
data were given. Wellesley and Haverford may also have been; I'll check
tomorrow.
Gary Glen Price
Josh LaGrange
Mark wrote in message <3806164A...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu>...
>Carey Heckman wrote:
>
>> Can New Haven as "urban paradise" be far behind?
>
>Nope. I still think it's the most fascinating and exciting town I've ever
lived
>in. More books and theaters per person than any city in the United States.
New
>York City might be a good choice too, but at this time of year, the
combination
>of Connecticut fall foliage and New Haven's tree-lined streets (New Haven
had the
>first public tree planting program in the country) is irresistable.
I resist.
Gary Glen Price
> I was a regular of the Intel and Westinghouse
> science competitions, as well as some top debating contests, and over 90% of
> the students each year went to elite private national universities like MIT,
> Ivy Leagues, Duke, Caltech, Northwestern, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, etc.
In the sociological literature on higher education, parents' [U.S.
dominant culture] "cultural capital" often shows up as an important
influence on the higher education choices that high school students
make. "Cultural capital" receives various definitions, most of which
involve nuanced insider information and tacit understanding of social
norms. Students from first- and second-generation immigrant families
are disproportionately represented among science competition winners.
It is plausible that a nontrivial proportion of parents in those
families possess relatively little [U.S. dominant culture] cultural
capital (just as I would if I moved to Japan). My guess is that
talented students from such families would ordinarily be steered by
parents and other kin toward institutions known in the country from
which they came. Schools more likely to be known in the home country
are those with famous graduate programs and those with many alumni.
Under this scenario, there's little surprise that science competition
winners from first- and second-generation immigrant families would be
(1) heavily represented at famous universities and (2) thinly
represented at leading liberal arts colleges.
Gary Glen Price
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
University of Wisconsin-Madison
M. Fuss
>In the sociological literature on higher education, parents' [U.S.
>dominant culture] "cultural capital" often shows up as an important
>influence on the higher education choices that high school students
>make. "Cultural capital" receives various definitions, most of which
>involve nuanced insider information and tacit understanding of social
>norms. Students from first- and second-generation immigrant families
>are disproportionately represented among science competition winners.
<snip>
This is clearly observed in the change from Jewish students dominating
in the "hard" sciences until roughly the 1970's, to Asian students
dominating today. The interesting question is "What is it in the
American culture that turns the brightest kids in the third generation
into investment bankers, movie directors and consultants?"
It isn't just increased opportunities and reduced prejudice in fields
outside of science (although that is certainly part of it). Future
scientists are on fire with scientific curiousity long before they
finish high school and can encounter employment discrimination. What
is it about science that turns on immigrant children, but doesn't
appeal to fully-assimilated children?
[Note: It is fully understood that both high energy physicists and
bond traders can and do emerge from every racial and religious group
and every other subculture in the U.S. It's broad trends we're talking
about here.]
Marshall Fuss
Raanmed
Date: Thu, 14 October 1999 03:37 AM EDT
>
>In article <3805194F...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu>,
>Mark <me...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu> wrote:
>>Greg: your posting is very accurate.
>>
>>Personally, however, my favorite choice was somewhere between a tiny liberal
>>arts college and a huge research university.
>
>Mark really wanted to go to Dartmouth, I thought as I read this sentence.
>But a few sentences later I discoverd the tired Yale-o-Matic infomercial
>was back. Sigh. Can New Haven as "urban paradise" be far behind?
>
>--
>Carey Heckman
>Stanford Law School
>
>
I thought he was talking about Wesleyan. ;-)
--Ron Medley aka John Wesley
raa...@aol.com
L J Gould
"M. Fuss" wrote:
>What is it about science that turns on immigrant children, but doesn't
> appeal to fully-assimilated children?
>
> [Note: It is fully understood that both high energy physicists and
> bond traders can and do emerge from every racial and religious group
> and every other subculture in the U.S. It's broad trends we're talking
> about here.]
>
> Marshall Fuss
I think all children like science. The thing that discourages most from
the sciences as a career is the fact that science requires the study of
mathematics and most American children just aren't up to the task when
it comes to math. Most find science interesting and math very,very
boring.
Gould
Chris Stone
Mark <me...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu> wrote in message
news:3805194F...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu...
> Personally, however, my favorite choice was somewhere between a tiny
liberal
> arts college and a huge research university.
What, your first choice was Princeton?
Greg Dyer
Ditto, I like math, but not so much science. Except physics, but that is
primarily math the way I've learned it so far.
Mark
Chris Stone wrote:
Close, but no cigar. Didn't bother to apply.
KSG
Mark wrote:
Obviously it was Cal Tech.
Mark
Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:53:45 GMT, mrf...@ix.netcom.com (M. Fuss)
> wrote:
>
> >This is clearly observed in the change from Jewish students dominating
> >in the "hard" sciences until roughly the 1970's, to Asian students
> >dominating today. The interesting question is "What is it in the
> >American culture that turns the brightest kids in the third generation
> >into investment bankers, movie directors and consultants?"
> >
> >It isn't just increased opportunities and reduced prejudice in fields
> >outside of science (although that is certainly part of it). Future
> >scientists are on fire with scientific curiousity long before they
> >finish high school and can encounter employment discrimination. What
> >is it about science that turns on immigrant children, but doesn't
> >appeal to fully-assimilated children?
> >
> >[Note: It is fully understood that both high energy physicists and
> >bond traders can and do emerge from every racial and religious group
> >and every other subculture in the U.S. It's broad trends we're talking
> >about here.]
> >
>
> Fascinating question and one I've never been able to answer to my own
> satisfaction. I can only assume as the previous poster did that
> children's preferences reflect their parents' aspirations, which in
> turn reflect what we celebrate as a nation--and that seems to be art
> and greed right now.
In the United States, engineers and scientists (not to mention teachers)
don't receive anywhere near the respect (or paychecks) they deserve. Of
course, that's a generalization, but many scientists and engineers do make
this complaint.
From what I've gathered, Jewish and most Asian ethnics are over-represented
by up to factors of 10+ in medicine, engineering, and science. Americans
of English descent in many states are over-represented by a factor of 2,
maybe, and many other Americans (Italian ethnics, blacks, Latinos, etc.)
are seriously under-represented. Maybe Mr. Price could offer an alternate
sociological explanation? Neither wealth accumulation nor immigration-
"lack of cultural capital" seem to work, given that most Jewish and English
ethnic groups have been residing in this country for many generations now.
Although it is impossible to satisfactorily explain or measure, could it be
that some groups are more likely to exhibit certain cultural values than
others? Why is it so extremely apparent in scientific fields?
Gary Glen Price
> Everyone that I've spoken to who has attended both a big University and a
> small liberal arts college seems to recommend going to a small liberal arts
> college. Why is this so? In addition, if you have any feelings to the
> contrary, please state them, and tell me why.
Chris Stone posted some durably interesting comments on college-choosing
a few years back. URLs linking to a few of them are given below.
Chris, would you add to these comments or change them anywise today?
From: cbs...@tucson.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone)
Subject: Re: Price or Prestige?
Date: 20 Jan 1996 00:00:00 GMT
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=136231842&fmt=text
From: cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone)
Subject: Re: a tough decision.... Which do you think is best?
Date: 07 Apr 1996 00:00:00 GMT
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=146252368&fmt=text
From: cbs...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone)
Subject: Re: Harvard vs. Swarthmore?
Date: 08 Apr 1996 00:00:00 GMT
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=146312290&fmt=text
From: cbs...@tucson.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone)
Subject: Merits of attending large university
Date: 10 Apr 1996 00:00:00 GMT
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=147003760&fmt=text
Gary Glen Price
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jeremy Thorp Fox
: I think all children like science. The thing that discourages most from
: the sciences as a career is the fact that science requires the study of
: mathematics and most American children just aren't up to the task when
: it comes to math. Most find science interesting and math very,very
: boring.
Funny, I liked math but not so much science.
--
------------------------
Jeremy T. Fox
Economics Grad Student
jer...@leland.stanford.edu
Jeremy Thorp Fox
: Conversely, Italy, while one of the world's most advanced nations
: intellectually, economically, and culturally, places great stock in
: family tradition and continuity--so much so that Italian children have
: in some cases been discouraged from "improving" themselves.
While I'm all for stereotypes if they seem to have a basis in reality,
this one seems pretty silly.
: And immigrants from Latin
: America come from nations in which the established traditions of
: organized scholarship were effaced with the destruction of the great
: Mesoamerican civilizations;
The people I know from Latin America are more likely to be Catholic than
to tear someone's heart out and sacrifice it to the sun god.
: their culture's attitude towards education
: is perhaps akin to that of a Southern European a few hundred years
: after the fall of Rome.
What was the attitude of Southern Europeans towards education a few
hundred years after the fall of Rome?
The problem I see with Latin American education is that misguided
nationalist/populist policies have transformed it into a debased right
instead of a worthy privilege. The first step to having a good school is
to set and enforce high standards.
Mark
KSG wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> > Chris Stone wrote:
> >
> > > Mark <me...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3805194F...@pantheon.NOSPAMyale.edu...
> > >
> > > > Personally, however, my favorite choice was somewhere between a tiny
> > > liberal
> > > > arts college and a huge research university.
> > >
> > > What, your first choice was Princeton?
> >
> > Close, but no cigar. Didn't bother to apply.
>
> Obviously it was Cal Tech.
liberal arts college?
Gary Glen Price
> I distinctly recall that Amherst was one for which no
> data were given. Wellesley and Haverford may also have been; I'll check
> tomorrow.
Data for Amherst, Haverford, and Wellesley were indeed missing from the
report that I used, but I've since tracked down data for them. The
approximate percentages of these schools' 1998-99 freshman class members
who were recipients of 1998 NMSC-sponsored scholarships are shown
below. I've encountered conflicting counts for the size of the 1998-99
freshman class, and I may need to revise these percentages once I track
down the official count of that entering class.
Amherst 4.7
Haverford 3.0
Wellesley 0.3
Gary Glen Price
mrfuss
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1nAGOFUHiVzrKP...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:53:45 GMT, mrf...@ix.netcom.com (M. Fuss)
> wrote:
>
> >This is clearly observed in the change from Jewish students dominating
> >in the "hard" sciences until roughly the 1970's, to Asian students
> >dominating today. The interesting question is "What is it in the
> >American culture that turns the brightest kids in the third generation
> >into investment bankers, movie directors and consultants?"
> >
> >It isn't just increased opportunities and reduced prejudice in fields
> >outside of science (although that is certainly part of it). Future
> >scientists are on fire with scientific curiousity long before they
> >finish high school and can encounter employment discrimination. What
> >is it about science that turns on immigrant children, but doesn't
> >appeal to fully-assimilated children?
> >
> >[Note: It is fully understood that both high energy physicists and
> >bond traders can and do emerge from every racial and religious group
> >and every other subculture in the U.S. It's broad trends we're talking
> >about here.]
> >
>
> Fascinating question and one I've never been able to answer to my own
> satisfaction. I can only assume as the previous poster did that
> children's preferences reflect their parents' aspirations, which in
> turn reflect what we celebrate as a nation--and that seems to be art
> and greed right now.
>
I fear you are correct. Fully-assimilated Americans learn to discard career
goals that don't involve a quick financial return.
Marshall Fuss
Jeremy Thorp Fox
: >Joshua P. Hill (XXjos...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Conversely, Italy, while one of the world's most advanced nations
: >: intellectually, economically, and culturally, places great stock in
: >: family tradition and continuity--so much so that Italian children have
: >: in some cases been discouraged from "improving" themselves.
: >
: >While I'm all for stereotypes if they seem to have a basis in reality,
: >this one seems pretty silly.
:
: Speak from knowledge, not ideology.
Can you show some examples of your knowledge of the fact that Italian
families disproportionately discourage their children from "improving"
themselves?
sha...@netusa1.net
> > >The interesting question is "What is it in the
> > >American culture that turns the brightest kids in the third
generation
> > >into investment bankers, movie directors and consultants?"
< snip >
> > >What
> > >is it about science that turns on immigrant children, but doesn't
> > >appeal to fully-assimilated children?
I am an Asian (more specifically Indian) father. I believe that
the answer to the above questions is: In Asia, it is suicide to count on
careers other than safe ones (such as those based on science, for
instance). Asian parents hold on to this fear (of careers other than
safe ones) even when they live in the U.S. for long periods of time.
They influence their children based on this fear. This is the major
difference between immigrant children and (what you call) 'fully-
assimilated children'.
This is certainly true in my case. My son (who is a sophomore in high
school) is interested in law (and developing video games). I would like
it if he has something solid to fall back on - such as a strong degree
in electrical engineering or computer science, before he gambles on
these chancy pursuits.
I have strong intellectual interests in psychology (behaviorism). (This
has been ongoing since 1974.) Yet, I would rather my children go for
something safer (and pursue other interests as hobbies, as I have been
doing).
The director of 'The Sixth Sense' is Indian. After his undergraduate
degree, he had offers to study medicine and film. His parents expected
him to study medicine. He decided otherwise but not without struggle.
My point: even this exception proves my theory of strong parental
influence to go into the sciences.
V. Chandrasekhar
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Josh LaGrange
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> <sha...@netusa1.net> wrote in message news:7uce3l$pp4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > This is certainly true in my case. My son (who is a sophomore in high
> > school) is interested in law (and developing video games). I would like
> > it if he has something solid to fall back on - such as a strong degree
> > in electrical engineering or computer science, before he gambles on
> > these chancy pursuits.
>
> I suspect that law is actually *less* risky than EE or computer science.
>
I suspect that the law students on this group have a warped perspective
(me included). Have you figured out your 2L summer?
--
Joshua C. LaGrange
Columbia Law School
Darccity
>the answer to the above questions is: In Asia, it is suicide to count on
>careers other than safe ones (such as those based on science, for
>instance). Asian parents hold on to this fear (of careers other than
>safe ones) even when they live in the U.S. for long periods of time.
>They influence their children based on this fear. This is the major
>difference between immigrant children and (what you call) 'fully-
>assimilated children'.
>
hang ups. With Indians, the family pressures seem to be the most extensive and
long lasting. Some of my closest Indian friends in academia became
unrecognizable misanthropes when they reach their forties. Families back home
expect them to achieve status, and they are forced to fulfill these
expectations even if it damages their health and costs them respect and
friendship. First symptoms of the transformation: they are suddenly
authorities are everything from local real estate to wine vintages and they
cannot ever be wrong. Don't put this kind pressure on your son in the guise of
security concerns. It's no life being hated and alone. Fortunately, other
Indian I know have stood up to these family pressures and are living happier
lives.
Gary Glen Price
which was posted by Mark (Yale Class of 2002) on 13 Oct 1999,
Gary Glen Price wrote under the heading of “crème de la crème criteria”
on 15 Oct 1999:
> A claim that top universities attract higher quality students than do
> top liberal arts colleges presupposes some definition of "higher quality
> students." Mark invoked one such definition: standout performance in
> national competitions like the Intel Science Talent Search
> <http://www.sciserv.org/sts/>, major debate contests, or receipt of a
> National Merit Scholarship.
> ...Independent of comparisons between categories of schools on criteria
> like these is the question of how the on-campus experience of most
> students is affected by sprinkling a campus community with some crème de
> la crème standouts, who are a tiny minority even at the most selective
> schools.
> ...In another posting to follow this one, I present another definition for
> "higher quality students" and show the effect of that shift in
> definition on the relative standing of institutions.
(Please pardon this resident of "America's Dairyland" for mixing a dairy
metaphor with an architectural one in the paragraph below.)
Institutional comparisons based on crème de la crème standouts emphasize
either the altitude of the highest point(s) in the ceiling or the
relative number of notably high points in the ceiling. An alternative
basis for institutional comparison emphasizes either the depth of the
lowest point(s) in the floor or the relative number of notably low
points in the floor. According to this alternative, institutions would
be compared on the basis of their lower margins, not their upper
margins. Lower margins of what? Upper margins of what? Just as upper
margins can refer to different criteria (Intel Science Talent Search,
National Merit Scholarships, etc.), so, too, can the lower margins.
I'll use an idealized construct, "lowest common lexicon," to illustrate
a comparison based on a lower margin.
The "lowest common lexicon" for a campus environment consists of words
one could use in conversation with a randomly assembled group of fellow
students, confident that a large majority of them would comprehend what
one said. This lowest common lexicon is not a sharply defined set on
any campus because it is inherently probabilistic. Despite the fact
that the lowest common lexicon of every school has a fuzzy, uncertain
boundary, it is nevertheless true that campus communities can differ
discernibly with regard to their lowest common lexicons. Some of these
differences are in domain of emphasis, not in overall scope:
Terminologies from different specialties can account for some
differences (e.g., classics-rich vocabularies at St. Johns' College;
musically elaborated vocabularies at Julliard; and technically
elaborated vocabularies at Caltech, where wit like "Don't drink and
derive" would be immediately understood by everyone). Apart from
stylistic differences like those just mentioned, quantitative
differences in scope also exist: Students from some schools plainly
deal from a smaller vocabular deck than students from other schools. I
know of no published demonstrations of this kind of variation; but (a)
I'm confident that it could be measured, and (b) I'm confident that
others who've witnessed strong college-to-college contrasts can vouch
for its existence.
Even if one grants that the lowest common lexicons of schools can and do
differ substantially in scope, one may still fairly ask, "So what?"
Would the on-campus experience of most students be affected by that kind
of difference; and, if so, how? Some of the words that would fill the
gap between a comparatively small lexicon and a comparatively large one
are pretentious fluff. (Some social critics totally dismiss pretentious
words; others defend them as cracked codes--shibboleths that give all
speakers of them passage into elitist inner circles.) Other words
filling the gap are unpretentious workhorses--efficient freights of
subtle but intellectually important meaning; conversations without them
are likely to dwell tediously or to ride roughshod over important
distinctions. I believe words in the unpretentious workhorse category
play an important role in the intellectual liveliness of class
discussions, professor-student communications, and informal exchanges
between students. When it is socially inclusive and socially acceptable
to use such words, ideas per minute and ideational complexity rise. So,
yes, I do believe that maintaining a comparatively high "lowest common
lexicon"--raising the floor--is a difference that does affect the
on-campus experience of most students.
If I've persuaded some readers that the "lowest common lexicon" of a
campus community is important, I must now remind them that it is an
idealized construct for which there is no specially designed, accepted
measure. However, some presently available information can be cobbled
into a crude indicator of it. In this cobbling operation, I treat a
specified, moderately competitive threshold on the Verbal SAT (i.e.,
600) as corresponding roughly to a moderately erudite lowest common
lexicon. In effect, I'm asking what percentage of entering students
scored 600 or above on the Verbal SAT, paying little heed to variations
in Verbal SAT scores above 600. My assumption here is that, as the
percentage of students who score anywhere in the 600-800 range on the
Verbal SAT goes up, so, too, does the likelihood that one could use
moderately erudite words in conversation with a randomly assembled group
of students and be confident that a large majority of them would
comprehend what one said.
Recall that my purpose in this posting was to present an alternative
definition for "higher quality students" (an alternative to crème de la
crème standouts) and to show the effect of that shift in definition on
the relative standings of institutions. You've now heard the case for
one idealized alternative (lowest common lexicon), and you've been
presented with a crude indicator of it (percentage of entering students
who scored 600 or above on the Verbal SAT). It's now time to see how a
shift to this definition of "higher quality students" affects the
relative standings of institutions. I've calculated these percentages
for students who entered in the 1997-1998 academic year from information
given in Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges (23rd Edition) and
Peterson's 4 Year Colleges (29th Edition). Schools with a percentage of
85 or higher appear below in descending order. Lacking data for Harvard
and Columbia, I could not include them in the analysis. The ordering of
schools in the list below follows the first column of numbers, which is
the percentage of entering students who scored 600 or above on the
Verbal SAT. The second column of numbers, the percentage who scored 700
or above on the Verbal SAT, was used to break ties in the first column.
The third column of numbers, the percentage who scored 600 or above on
the Math SAT, anticipates a forthcoming posting; I say a little more
about it at the end of this posting.
VSAT>599 VSAT>699 MSAT>599
Swarthmore 96 65 95
Harvey Mudd 96 56 100
Caltech 95 70 100
Amherst 95 62 95
Pomona 95 58 95
Stanford 94 69 95
Princeton 94 63 95
Middlebury 94 57 91
Dartmouth 94 56 95
Yale 93 66 96
New College (FL) 93 57 77
MIT 92 56 100
Rice 91 60 92
Reed 91 52 80
Williams 90 54 92
Washington & Lee 90 35 88
Barnard 90 28 82
Duke 88 47 91
Grinnell 88 39 84
Wheaton (IL) 88 32 74
Brown 87 51 90
Haverford 87 43 85
Carleton 87 42 87
Northwestern 87 36 92
Vassar 87 35 82
Johns Hopkins 87 33 92
Chicago 86 42 88
Wellesley 86 37 82
St Johns-Santa Fe 86 36 49
Bryn Mawr 85 40 71
Sarah Lawrence 85 37 47
Penn 85 36 93
All of the schools listed above fare well on this crude indicator of the
"lowest common lexicon" criterion. This criterion compares schools on
the basis of their lower margins, favoring schools that, with regard to
the architectural metaphor, have relatively few notably low points in
the floor. In this intermingling of universities and liberal arts
colleges, neither category of school is distinctly higher than the
other. Inasmuch as this feature of entering classes does affect the
educational experiences of most students (presumably, other things being
equal, in a beneficial way), all of these schools succeed at creating a
community wherein ideas per minute and ideational complexity can soar.
Small differences between schools are surely inconsequential. A
majority of the schools listed above could probably achieve 100% in the
first column, if they chose to do so. It is good that they don’t: They
are more interesting communities for not going overboard on any single
criterion, instead using those low points in the floor to accommodate
persons who enrich the campus community on sundry other dimensions, such
as acting, art, athletics, charisma, cultural perspective, dance,
empathy, humor, inventiveness, music, sociableness, and storytelling.
A handful of the most selective universities and liberal arts schools
have the luxury of enriching their campus communities on nonacademic
dimensions without sacrificing much on distinctly academic dimensions.
That luxury extends to economic and ethnic diversity, too. Schools like
Stanford, Swarthmore, and Yale keep the lowest common lexicon at an
intellectually scintillating level while also achieving mind-expandingly
diverse mixes of students. Tradeoffs are more evident for most
schools. Washington and Lee University, for instance, keeps its lowest
common lexicon high but does so with a prevalently white, privileged
student body. Oberlin College, which combines a liberal arts college
with a conservatory, appropriately emphasizes music when admitting
students to the conservatory, balancing between academic and musical
priorities; 83% of its entering students scored in the 600-800 range on
the Verbal SAT.
Some other schools make tradeoffs between academic dimensions. Among
schools listed above, for instance, St. John’s College-Santa Fe is
lopsidedly verbal, with 86% of entering students scoring 600-800 on
Verbal SAT but only 49% scoring 600-800 on the Math SAT. Sarah Lawrence
College (85% & 47%) is also lopsidedly verbal. Schools like Webb
Institute (79% & 100%), Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (69% & 95%),
Georgia Tech (66% & 90%), and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (52% &
78%) are lopsided in the other direction.
In this posting, I’ve described, defended, and illustrated the idea of
comparing institutions on the basis of their lower
margins--metaphorically, the relative number of notably low points in
the floor. My illustration used one dimension of comparison ("lowest
common lexicon," with an indicator cobbled from the Verbal SAT) among
multiple possible dimensions of comparison. The third column of numbers
in the list above suggests another dimension of comparison, "lowest
common numeracy," for which a similarly conceived indicator could be
cobbled from the Math SAT. This anticipates a forthcoming posting,
"Comparing Colleges’ Weakest Links," which, in addition to combining
"lowest common lexicon" and "lowest common numeracy," will further
extend the idea of comparing institutions on the basis of their lower
margins.
Gary Glen Price
Kang Su Gatlin
>
> Even if one grants that the lowest common lexicons of schools can and do
> differ substantially in scope, one may still fairly ask, "So what?"
> Would the on-campus experience of most students be affected by that kind
> of difference; and, if so, how? Some of the words that would fill the
> gap between a comparatively small lexicon and a comparatively large one
> are pretentious fluff. (Some social critics totally dismiss pretentious
> words; others defend them as cracked codes--shibboleths that give all
> speakers of them passage into elitist inner circles.) Other words
> filling the gap are unpretentious workhorses--efficient freights of
> subtle but intellectually important meaning; conversations without them
> are likely to dwell tediously or to ride roughshod over important
> distinctions. I believe words in the unpretentious workhorse category
> play an important role in the intellectual liveliness of class
> discussions, professor-student communications, and informal exchanges
> between students. When it is socially inclusive and socially acceptable
> to use such words, ideas per minute and ideational complexity rise. So,
> yes, I do believe that maintaining a comparatively high "lowest common
> lexicon"--raising the floor--is a difference that does affect the
> on-campus experience of most students.
Can you give some examples of some of these workhorses?
My experience has been surprisingly the opposite. When I head to the Bay Area
I often spend considerable time with people who never went to college and
probably would have a hard time getting into even unselective colleges. The
conversations seem less pedantic, more spontaneous, and genuinely more
enlightening.
Sometimes I wonder if formal education sucks life out of people and substitutes
it with vocabulary...
--
One Luv,
KSG
Droppin' Science Mix Show KSDT Mondays 10-midnight
Hear it REAL AUDIO: http://scw.ucsd.edu/droppinscience/
Personal: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~kgatlin
Gary Glen Price
>
> Can you give some examples of some of these workhorses?
>
> My experience has been surprisingly the opposite. When I head to the Bay Area
> I often spend considerable time with people who never went to college and
> probably would have a hard time getting into even unselective colleges. The
> conversations seem less pedantic, more spontaneous, and genuinely more
> enlightening.
"Anecdote" would be one. More to follow.
Gary Glen Price
> Can you give some examples of some of these workhorses?
I'm aware that a few of the examples below are too specialized (e.g.,
syllogism, torque) to be widely known by high school students; but
they're workhorses, nonetheless.
allegory
alliteration
allusion
ambiguous
ambivalent
analogy
anecdote ;)
autocracy
autonomy
benchmark
coefficient
compound
conditional
to conjugate
to contradict
density
dichotomy
equilibrium
to equivocate
explicit, implicit
extrinsic, intrinsic
to fuse
ideal
inflection
innuendo
insulation
inverse
leverage
logic
metamorphosis
nocturnal
parabola
paradox
to pervade
Philistine ;)
proportional
remnant
robbery ;)
sanctimonious
saturation
sediment
supposition
syllogism
symbolism
tautology
torque
wishful thinking
Kang Su Gatlin wrote:
> My experience has been surprisingly the opposite. When I head to the Bay Area
> I often spend considerable time with people who never went to college and
> probably would have a hard time getting into even unselective colleges. The
> conversations seem less pedantic, more spontaneous, and genuinely more
> enlightening.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if formal education sucks life out of people and substitutes
> it with vocabulary...
The psychologist Raymond B. Cattell drew a useful distinction between
"fluid abilities" and "crystallized abilities." "Fluid ability"
describes mental agility and flexibility most readily apparent when a
person is faced with a genuinely novel problem for which there is no
apparent way to apply previously learned concepts, strategies, and
tools. The idea comes close to popular expressions like "raw talent"
and "native intelligence." Plenty of people who never entered college
do match or exceed many collegians in fluid ability; and I, too, enjoy
talking with them. You seem to believe that they would cease being
interesting if they were soiled with what Cattell called "crystallized
abilities" (and what Thomas Jefferson called "cultivation"). My own
belief is that their enjoyableness is hardier than that--and not so
easily ruined.
"Crystallized abilities" are mind-enhancing, cognition-empowering tools
that can be gradually assembled and interconnected through learning.
These are cultural inheritances that are shared by all humanity and
ordinarily transmitted through schooling. The Cartesian coordinate
system, invented but a few hundred years ago by René Descartes
(1596-1650), is a good example. We who were taught how to use Cartesian
axes to graphically coordinate two or three variables in a visible way
find it a mental prosthetic that makes otherwise unwieldy problems
handleable. It's hard to imagine doing without it. Two people who are
familiar and comfortable with this form of symbolization can communicate
about a mathematical relationship with much greater efficiency than
would be possible if either of them lacked graphical literacy. Algebra,
an Arabic invention, also leverages the problem-solving abilities and
mathematical communications of those who were fortunate enough to
incorporate it into their mental architecture (most likely through
schooling). Likewise, analytically powerful concepts and the words that
stand for them extend the mental reach of those who learn to use them.
Those concepts and the words that stand for them, when shared by members
of a group, extend not only the mental reach of individuals but also the
collective mental reach of the group.
I include the following as an historical footnote. Thomas Jefferson
unsuccessfully championed the development of public education during his
lifetime. His vision for increased educational access could have
crossed gender and racial lines, and it is regrettable that he failed to
extend the idea in those directions. Despite that shortsightedness, he,
too, distinguished between "genius" or "talent" and the cultivation of
it which education could provide. He wrote in 1782, "By ... [selecting]
the youths of genius from among the classes of the poor, we hope to
avail the State of those talents which nature has sown as liberally
among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use if not sought
for and cultivated" (1782, Notes on Virginia). Thirty-five years later,
Jefferson framed a similar discussion in terms of international
competitiveness: "The object [of my education bill was] to bring into
action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every
country for want of the means of development, and thus give activity to
a mass of mind which in proportion to our population shall be the double
or treble of what it is in most countries" (1817, Letter to M. Correa de
Serra).
Kang Su Gatlin
> Plenty of people who never entered college
> do match or exceed many collegians in fluid ability; and I, too, enjoy
> talking with them. You seem to believe that they would cease being
> interesting if they were soiled with what Cattell called "crystallized
> abilities" (and what Thomas Jefferson called "cultivation"). My own
> belief is that their enjoyableness is hardier than that--and not so
> easily ruined.
I actually don't think it is the "crystallization" that cause the problems, but
rather that you must lay in dirt to get soiled.
Kangaeru Hito
> And immigrants from Latin
> America come from nations in which the established traditions of
> organized scholarship were effaced with the destruction of the great
> is perhaps akin to that of a Southern European a few hundred years
> after the fall of Rome.
Sounds like a false analogy. Because of Spanish colonization, conversion to
Catholicism, flurry of changes in the next few centuries, etc., I think that
their culture's link to the Mesoamerican civilizations is a bit more
tenuous. I don't think the fact that their traditions of organized
scholarship were wiped out has any bearing on their current attitudes toward
education.
"Vox populi, vox Dei."
Jeremy Thorp Fox
: But religion aside, the medieval European also had his culture
: replaced with a foreign one, and at best a very tenuous connection
: with the past:
Roaming Germanic tribesmen (if that's who you refer to) were probably less
academically inclined than Spanish and Portuguese colonizers and their
descendents.
M. Fuss
>Kang Su Gatlin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give some examples of some of these workhorses?
>>
>> My experience has been surprisingly the opposite. When I head to the Bay Area
>> I often spend considerable time with people who never went to college and
>> probably would have a hard time getting into even unselective colleges. The
>> conversations seem less pedantic, more spontaneous, and genuinely more
>> enlightening.
>"Anecdote" would be one. More to follow.
That favorite college pejorative, "anecdotal," would be much more
telling.
Marshall Fuss