I'm not U.S. based, so I don't have a total understanding of the whole "prestigious" university vs. community college debate. However, I find it hard to believe that they teach basically the same thing.
I'd believe that their curricula are essentially the same, but that's what's "on paper", so to speak. Even if they're both accredited, wouldn't better faculty lead to better teaching? Or better research programs and partnerships with industry? Even stricter requirements and evaluation criteria. If at least some of these aspects are true when talking about "prestigious" universities, then the bias you describe isn't that bad of a heuristic.
> Even if they're both accredited, wouldn't better faculty lead to better teaching?
No. Generally, at research institutions, faculty are not chosen for their teaching ability. They are chosen for their research background. They are often horrifically bad teachers, if they even teach the class at all and don't just assign it to a TA.
It also doesn't take a world-renowned genius to teach an undergraduate or even a Master's program. It takes someone with a very solid grounding in the subject, which should be any graduate, who also happens to be a great (preferably enthusiastic) communicator.
I can see your point, but I believe this roughly depends on the education level we're talking about. I did my degree quite a few years ago, but finished my PhD last year. At least in the higher-level, when "learning" isn't exactly the classroom-like experience, I'd rather have a brilliant researcher but lousy teacher as a professor (instead of the opposite).
Absolutely, at the highest levels, where you are doing research, working with researchers, and working in labs, then you definitely want brilliant researchers hired for their research background. I just don't think that's true for the majority of undergraduate or even graduate students. And (I think), universities are very good at hiring for research ability.
Hiring for teaching ability they are not good at, even when they intend to.
> No. Generally, at research institutions, faculty are not chosen for their teaching ability. They are chosen for their research background. They are often horrifically bad teachers, if they even teach the class at all and don't just assign it to a TA.
I will have to say that I have had a few, select few, of those few bad teachers.
As a TA, I can also say that I am thankful that my professor doesn't stick the load of our lecture work on me, but I have heard from many other TAs that this does happen. From what I understand, I'm VERY lucky that I am working with am amazing teacher.
I know this is more anecdotal, but I don't see that at least where I attend.
My school allows transfer credit from all of the neighboring community college.
I also have friends who attended my same high school who are attending community collage. We have traded notes on classes and it seems like we do learn the same material.
The only difference is that my school packs every class with 20+ people while their school has at max 15 people per class.
This is also very anecdotal but the teachers that I have met from their school are also most focused on helping students rather than getting all of their hours of teaching done for the week so they can continue their research.
I've found that, for some classes, you may get a better experience at a community college than at a "real" university, just due to class size and personal attention from the instructors. CC's tend to have smaller classes, and teachers who aren't so swamped with students (and research) and can therefore spend more time helping the students.
This may not be universally true, but it's something I've observed.
I agree. I have been considering doing this with my local community college since we have 1:1 transfer with my university. The classes also cost like 1/4 of the cost.
Good point. That was a big reason I started my education at a community college. Classes were cheap, small, and there was and agreement for automatic admission with full credit transfer between that CC and the university I wanted to attend.
In addition, the CC was also 10 miles from my home instead of the 35 miles to the university campus, which was one more reason. For me, it was a no-brainer to go to the CC for two years and then transfer.
I'd believe that their curricula are essentially the same, but that's what's "on paper", so to speak. Even if they're both accredited, wouldn't better faculty lead to better teaching? Or better research programs and partnerships with industry? Even stricter requirements and evaluation criteria. If at least some of these aspects are true when talking about "prestigious" universities, then the bias you describe isn't that bad of a heuristic.