Research PhD's are Ruining the Education at B&M Universities? Online is Better?

This is valid. I was not familiar with this model as I've never experienced it. Now the question I have in follow up is what are the credentials of the people providing feedback in both of these models in these cases? Are they receiving feedback from teaching fellows, lecturers or research professors as a general rule?

 

Can't speak for Oxbridge, but at a US liberal arts college (LAC), tutorial classes are typically run by tenured (or tenure-track) PhD professors. However, a "professor" at a LAC has a different kind of job than a "professor" at a research university.

There is basically no such thing as a "research professor" at a LAC. The expectations for faculty research at LACs are relatively low; no one expects them to do groundbreaking research. Research efforts tend to be oriented towards programs that can include undergraduate participation; such participation is considered a valuable addition to an undergraduate education, and excellent preparation for graduate school. Since LACs have few or no graduate students, the faculty are obliged to turn to the undergrads if they want any research assistance.

Conversely, the expectations for faculty teaching are much higher at a LAC than at a research university. LAC profs are expected to be excellent teachers, to carry high teaching loads, and to involve undergrads in their research efforts. Basically, undergraduate education is a higher institutional priority than original research.

Research universities often have "lecturer" positions, for full-time PhD faculty who are primarily responsible for teaching, rather than research. So from a research university perspective, LAC "professors" might be seen as more akin to "lecturers". On the other hand, the "professors" at LACs have full academic status and power within their institutions, while the "lecturers" at research universities usually have secondary status relative to the research professors.

 

@ Caldog -

Exactly so I guess what I'd really like to see is a more focused thread that actually stays on point and doesn't make apples to oranges comparisons between research professors at research schools and teaching professors at teaching schools.

I'd seriously hope that attention is provided students at teaching schools. However, what I think I saw here was the research argument being applied to the teaching school model and I think that's not quite right for all of the reasons you posted.

All said, I could have read things incorrectly. One of my major pet peeves is any argument where participants are making tangential statements to reinforce their position on a surface level.. especially on forums where thread start a death spiral in near immediate timeframes.

I think that the counter to this annoying trait of mine is I like beer and love sharing it with people

 

The title of the thread is: Research PhD's are Ruining the Education at B&M Universities? So the question refers to "B&M Universities" generally.

The concerns raised by the Original Poster do have some validity -- at many research-oriented B&M universities. But even if this concern is accepted as valid, it does not apply to all B&M schools generally, and that was my only point. B&M liberal arts colleges continue to be teaching-oriented, and this orientation is shared by some B&M "universities" as well (e.g. Colgate University, Wesleyan University, Richmond University, University of Puget Sound).

 

Just to clarify, the only reason I posted this thread was because I thought it was an interesting statement that we might find entertaining to discuss here; I'm not particularly concerned, nor do I take the statement very seriously. You should read the book. The guy really slams our education system and it's a little harsh for my taste, but it is a stimulating read and provides food for thought...and a few good discussion topics!

 

Most of my teachers at USF during my undergrad were graduate students. I figured it was because the school didn't have the money to pay the assistant professors to teach classes. My anthropologist teacher was actually an assistant professor but he often complained that society didn't value his PhD and that he was underpaid.
I thought it was funny because he really didn't understand the free market system and I did at 19 years of age.

 

So...you got your education from a student during attendance at a well respected reseach institute! :nono: I bet if you went to Eckerd (a liberal arts school) you would have been taught by teachers.

 

Fall 2010, Student-Faculty Ratios:

24:1 University of South Florida
13:1 Eckerd College

Values are from the Common Data Set, a standardized reporting form for colleges and universities, and should be directly comparable. Graduate student teaching assistants are not included (this is a non-issue for Eckerd, as they have no grad students).

 

There was an opening for a professor of management at Eckerd and I seriously considered going for it. It is a beautiful campus and my wife and I had seen several plays there as well as a writers fest where Stephan King (the writer not the guy who posts here) was the keynote speaker.

 

I believe that this is true. I could also name a number of other schools that fit into this category: Amherst, Bates, Hampshire, Wellesley, Connecticut, Smith, etc. The only problem is the cost. These are among the most expensive schools on the planet and I'd be willing to bet that there's not a single member of this forum that could afford to attend (or pay for their child to attend) such a school.

 

Depends entirely on how much I decide to like Ramen Noodle My son's 10 and costs me about 20k per year for tuition at this point.

 

Mmmmm, Ramen.

I have heard it said that it's better to send you child to a private high school and then a state college as opposed to sending them to a public high school and then a small liberal arts college. The rationale is that the child learnsd all the good study habits, self-discipline, etc. in the prep school and can then maximize the potential learning provided in the state university. It makes some sense to me.

 

I agree with that approach. When the bill comes due every August I keep telling myself I'm stacking the deck in his favor for him. We'll see, though if he gets into an Ivy I'm going to sell my organs for him. Yup.

 

I'm sure you will not experience this, but we sent our daughter to a private high school and found that the academics were no better, if not worse, than public school. Very disappointing after spending many thousands of dollars.

 

I think that there are reasons to go to private schools and reasons to not go to private schools.

1. Anyone sending a kid to a private because privates have "better teachers" is not informed well. Better teachers come from teaching more students. Private schools have lower numbers of students and fewer teachers. Besides, "better" is subjective.

2. You send a kid to a private because you want better access to resources or a specific mix of culture, or perhaps more personalized attention. There's no guarantee the education will be better, but your kid may have a better chance of being a part of that culture or be better in a very specific area that doesn't show up on standard tests.

3. Certainly, some schools have relationships with other schools in a chain effect. This is not a guarantee of anything, but connections made can last a lifetime and I'm reasonably fortunate to live near privates that have pushed out American Presidents.

In my case, at the time my son matriculated to his private, my local school system lost its accreditation at the high school level and the majority of our publics were in some state of disrepair. A cost analysis on moving to a better district showed I was better off paying tuition for 12 years.