8/8/2011: From Mark Baker in the RG. The Princeton Review rankings, on the other hand, put us in bottom 10 nationwide for teaching. The fact they also put Cal Tech in that group makes me a little curious about their methodology. The UO NRC grad program rankings are here.
Of course they put UO with Caltech. Both schools are absolutely notorious for their academic rigor! String theory in freshman physics, dynamical systems in foundations of biology. Plus our freshman humanities students are getting blasted with Kant, Hegel, Leo Strauss and Levi-Strauss. We have a lot to be proud of!
My gut tells me that the Princeton Review rankings are closer to the mark. In recent years, I’ve heard a litany of complaints from undergrads about their instructors–particularly, ones in entry-level classes. I also think that many departments do an abysmal job of evaluating teaching. My own, unfortunately, falls into that category.
Dog (formerly at Caltech):
1. CalTech is somewhat inhumane with respect to most students.
2. UO is mostly incompetent at the lower undergraduate levels.
I think that explains why they are together in the opinions of the students.
I graduated from Caltech undergrad in 1988. There’s a saying that trying to learn at Caltech was like trying to take a drink of water from a firehose . . . pointed at your face.
I had very high grades in a private academic prep high school and pretty high SATs. Yet, I once got 9 out of 105 points on a chemistry midterm (still passed the course, go figure). I heard of one advanced physics course where the average score out of 30 was 5; 9 was one of the best scores.