4 ms·

I agree that the graduate education and research at such schools is generally world-class. I'm less convinced that the undergraduate education at Harvard or Yal

I agree that the graduate education and research at such schools is generally world-class. I'm less convinced that the undergraduate education at Harvard or Yale is substantially better than, say, the University of Michigan or any other top 20 school, especially in domains with a relatively standard curriculum like math and physics. Also, don't confuse the outputs with the causal effects of ivy PhD problems. Some of the learning environments are terrible but graduate leading researchers because they use the name brand to attract the top applicants. Their inputs are amazing, so the outputs are excellent even with subpar value-add.

rkk3 5y ago
> I'm less convinced that the undergraduate education at Harvard or Yale is substantially better than, say, the University of Michigan or any other top 20 school, especially in domains with a relatively standard curriculum like math and physics. I agree with you but would probably go further than other top 20 schools which are also incredibly elite places and exclusive places. I've also heard enough stories about undergraduate math/physics at Harvard that I would be surprised if it were better. They aren't selecting for faculty that necessarily excel in teaching. Sometimes you don't want a Nobel Prize winner to be your introductory teacher, because they might throw out the curriculum and teach whatever they want.
mananaysiempre 5y ago
It’s difficult to support undergrad without good researchers and an accompanying grad school. Or rather, it is superficially possible, but in a couple generations (academic ones, i.e. in a decade or two), as graduates of the school assume teaching positions, a kind of vicious circle of degeneration sets in where the curriculum discards connections to the actual state of the field and successive iterations of courses fossilize while working out more and more minuscule kinks of an ultimately flawed pedagogical approach, usually that of the “founders” who last had contact with actual science. (Nothing against those founders—most pedagogical approaches are flawed in one way or another—the wrong part is doubling down on those flaws.) It’s a not uncommon (if also not universal) thing to happen to applied maths departments, especially those where mathematicians aren’t allowed or encouraged to do their own thing. Bad high school maths is essentially the ultimate endpoint of this process, see e.g. Quinn on the “revolution in mathematics” in the Notices of the AMS[1]. A more high-brow example is perhaps how no undergraduate physics major in a Russian university includes group theory(!)—because Landau thought it useless and annoying (he was not the only one among the greats to think so, though perhaps the last,—look up “Gruppenpest” for more), and that was when official university physics programs in Russia detached from actual research. Unfortunately, the amount of places in the world doing fundamental maths, places diverse enough that you can stand in the hallway and find someone who can explain to you a subject far removed from your own (that’s essentially what counts as “world-class”), is perhaps a couple dozen, certainly not in the hundreds. As long as they exist at all, there’s hope that with enough cross-pollination the whole thing will not die out, but losing even a single one is literally, through these kinds of knock-on effects only visible over a period of a couple of decades, a blow to the collective knowledge of humanity. (As a late-Soviet—early-Russian apocryphal story goes: “Why are you not emigrating?” “I have people to talk to here.” [Ten years later] “Why have you emigrated?” “There was nobody left to talk to there.”) [1]: http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100031p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100031p.pdf
- spekcular 5y ago
  "It’s difficult to support undergrad without good researchers and an accompanying grad school. Or rather, it is superficially possible, but in a couple generations (academic ones, i.e. in a decade or two), as graduates of the school assume teaching positions, a kind of vicious circle of degeneration sets in [...]" I don't agree with this. First, because there are a bunch of elite liberal arts colleges in the US that serve as direct counterexamples. Second, because the teachers at these schools are not typically drawn from graduates of the school, but from PhD graduates of mid- to high-ranking research programs. To give one example, Francis Su (who writes a lot about math education) teaches at Harvey Mudd – an excellent institution with no graduate program – and earned a PhD from Harvard. Also: "Unfortunately, the amount of places in the world doing fundamental maths, places diverse enough that you can stand in the hallway and find someone who can explain to you a subject far removed from your own (that’s essentially what counts as “world-class”), is perhaps a couple dozen, certainly not in the hundreds." This is just wrong. Diversity is not really essential to the ranking or quality of a department. Plenty of top places eschew certain subjects (logic, combinatorics) or have relatively narrow tastes (NYU Courant, Princeton ORFE). Building strong groups in a few focus areas is much more important for research productivity. It sucks to be the only person doing Subject X at a certain place.
  - tzs 5y ago
    > Harvey Mudd – an excellent institution with no graduate program It is one of the Claremont Colleges though, a consortium of 5 undergraduate schools and 2 graduate schools in Claremont that share many facilities and programs. 6 of the 7 have adjacent campuses. Students in the Claremont undergraduate schools can take classes at the graduate schools (an at the other undergraduate schools). I'd expect that this gives Harvey Mudd students most of any advantages that going to an undergraduate school that has a graduate school does.
bradlys 5y ago
> Their inputs are amazing, so the outputs are excellent even with subpar value-add. This is exactly it. The people I know from going to Ivy leagues (or similar) are exceptional people to begin with. They were doing well before they got admitted. When I compare them to my peers from more accepting schools - they’re above marks in almost everything. This isn’t because Yale made them a better person - it’s because they were to begin with. (Usually due to differences in upbringing) Seeing an Ivy League degree, I usually just think, “oh, good for them. This person probably came from a good family.” Whereas when I see some other unknown university I don’t give it much thought other than - “probably didn’t come from as good of a family as the Ivy League folks”. Where “good” in this case is something that enables one to go to such elite universities - quantify that however you like. That said - I don’t hold up Ivy league graduates very much - I’ve met a lot of dumbasses who got their degrees from them. Being good at getting into a school doesn’t mean you’re going to be good at everything else - lol.
- bumby 5y ago
  >This isn’t because Yale made them a better person - it’s because they were to begin with. There’s actually been research that corroborates your hunch. They looked at students who were accepted to top schools and attended lower schools for a variety of reasons. Those students did as well as the cadre who attended top schools, indicating it was the schools selecting students who were already on track to be successful rather than helping those students become successful. The one exception was students who came from a low socioeconomic class. They did benefit from attending top schools.

rkk3 5y ago

> I'm less convinced that the undergraduate education at Harvard or Yale is substantially better than, say, the University of Michigan or any other top 20 school, especially in domains with a relatively standard curriculum like math and physics. I agree with you but would probably go further than other top 20 schools which are also incredibly elite places and exclusive places. I've also heard enough stories about undergraduate math/physics at Harvard that I would be surprised if it were better. They aren't selecting for faculty that necessarily excel in teaching. Sometimes you don't want a Nobel Prize winner to be your introductory teacher, because they might throw out the curriculum and teach whatever they want.

mananaysiempre 5y ago

It’s difficult to support undergrad without good researchers and an accompanying grad school. Or rather, it is superficially possible, but in a couple generations (academic ones, i.e. in a decade or two), as graduates of the school assume teaching positions, a kind of vicious circle of degeneration sets in where the curriculum discards connections to the actual state of the field and successive iterations of courses fossilize while working out more and more minuscule kinks of an ultimately flawed pedagogical approach, usually that of the “founders” who last had contact with actual science. (Nothing against those founders—most pedagogical approaches are flawed in one way or another—the wrong part is doubling down on those flaws.) It’s a not uncommon (if also not universal) thing to happen to applied maths departments, especially those where mathematicians aren’t allowed or encouraged to do their own thing. Bad high school maths is essentially the ultimate endpoint of this process, see e.g. Quinn on the “revolution in mathematics” in the Notices of the AMS[1]. A more high-brow example is perhaps how no undergraduate physics major in a Russian university includes group theory(!)—because Landau thought it useless and annoying (he was not the only one among the greats to think so, though perhaps the last,—look up “Gruppenpest” for more), and that was when official university physics programs in Russia detached from actual research. Unfortunately, the amount of places in the world doing fundamental maths, places diverse enough that you can stand in the hallway and find someone who can explain to you a subject far removed from your own (that’s essentially what counts as “world-class”), is perhaps a couple dozen, certainly not in the hundreds. As long as they exist at all, there’s hope that with enough cross-pollination the whole thing will not die out, but losing even a single one is literally, through these kinds of knock-on effects only visible over a period of a couple of decades, a blow to the collective knowledge of humanity. (As a late-Soviet—early-Russian apocryphal story goes: “Why are you not emigrating?” “I have people to talk to here.” [Ten years later] “Why have you emigrated?” “There was nobody left to talk to there.”) [1]: http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100031p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100031p.pdf

spekcular 5y ago
"It’s difficult to support undergrad without good researchers and an accompanying grad school. Or rather, it is superficially possible, but in a couple generations (academic ones, i.e. in a decade or two), as graduates of the school assume teaching positions, a kind of vicious circle of degeneration sets in [...]" I don't agree with this. First, because there are a bunch of elite liberal arts colleges in the US that serve as direct counterexamples. Second, because the teachers at these schools are not typically drawn from graduates of the school, but from PhD graduates of mid- to high-ranking research programs. To give one example, Francis Su (who writes a lot about math education) teaches at Harvey Mudd – an excellent institution with no graduate program – and earned a PhD from Harvard. Also: "Unfortunately, the amount of places in the world doing fundamental maths, places diverse enough that you can stand in the hallway and find someone who can explain to you a subject far removed from your own (that’s essentially what counts as “world-class”), is perhaps a couple dozen, certainly not in the hundreds." This is just wrong. Diversity is not really essential to the ranking or quality of a department. Plenty of top places eschew certain subjects (logic, combinatorics) or have relatively narrow tastes (NYU Courant, Princeton ORFE). Building strong groups in a few focus areas is much more important for research productivity. It sucks to be the only person doing Subject X at a certain place.
- tzs 5y ago
  > Harvey Mudd – an excellent institution with no graduate program It is one of the Claremont Colleges though, a consortium of 5 undergraduate schools and 2 graduate schools in Claremont that share many facilities and programs. 6 of the 7 have adjacent campuses. Students in the Claremont undergraduate schools can take classes at the graduate schools (an at the other undergraduate schools). I'd expect that this gives Harvey Mudd students most of any advantages that going to an undergraduate school that has a graduate school does.

bradlys 5y ago

> Their inputs are amazing, so the outputs are excellent even with subpar value-add. This is exactly it. The people I know from going to Ivy leagues (or similar) are exceptional people to begin with. They were doing well before they got admitted. When I compare them to my peers from more accepting schools - they’re above marks in almost everything. This isn’t because Yale made them a better person - it’s because they were to begin with. (Usually due to differences in upbringing) Seeing an Ivy League degree, I usually just think, “oh, good for them. This person probably came from a good family.” Whereas when I see some other unknown university I don’t give it much thought other than - “probably didn’t come from as good of a family as the Ivy League folks”. Where “good” in this case is something that enables one to go to such elite universities - quantify that however you like. That said - I don’t hold up Ivy league graduates very much - I’ve met a lot of dumbasses who got their degrees from them. Being good at getting into a school doesn’t mean you’re going to be good at everything else - lol.

bumby 5y ago
>This isn’t because Yale made them a better person - it’s because they were to begin with. There’s actually been research that corroborates your hunch. They looked at students who were accepted to top schools and attended lower schools for a variety of reasons. Those students did as well as the cadre who attended top schools, indicating it was the schools selecting students who were already on track to be successful rather than helping those students become successful. The one exception was students who came from a low socioeconomic class. They did benefit from attending top schools.