“Go to the most prestigious college you can!” That’s been the conventional wisdom in America for the last several decades. It has caused a great many students and their families added expense because prestigious schools are better. But what if that’s not necessarily so? A recent Chronicle of Higher Education piece, “Colleges’ Prestige Doesn’t Guarantee a Top-Flight Learning Experience” challenges the conventional wisdom.
Looking at data from “Nessie” (National Survey of Student Engagement, that is), author Dan Berrett observes that it isn’t uncommon for a fairly low-ranked school (e.g., North Carolina’s Fayetteville State) to have stronger marks for effective teaching than do far more highly ranked schools such as Bryn Mawr or Harvey Mudd.
That shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with higher education. Small, low-budget schools where the faculty concentrates on teaching are better for many students than esteemed, big-budget schools where the faculty is often too busy with other things to pay much attention to the undergrads.
But Berrett quotes one person who finds that hard to accept, NC State professor Stephen Porter. Berrett writes, “It struck him as bizarre to argue that attending a deep-pocketed college with a renowned faculty and a rich array of educational programs was equal to going to an under-funded college where most students commute.” I know it’s hard for someone steeped in higher ed’s belief system to doubt that more money and a “renowned faculty” must lead to superior education, but that is often the case. A good college class does not depend on having spent tons of money on all the educational trappings, and unrenowned professors can be just as competent — and often more dedicated to working with students — as those who have landed positions at prestigious institutions.