[lol768]

>At the low ranked school, professors did not reuse homework or exams. They focused a lot more on what you were learning and less on how well you can do on the final exam. They had plenty of office hours - ranging from 3-12 hours a week (3 was considered low). Much fewer students per class. No TA's in between - faculty taught almost all the courses, and the office hours were with them.

As someone who's spent a few years in undergrad CS at a decently ranked Russell Group university, I'd have to agree that this appears to be the case in the UK too. For some staff, teaching is clearly something they _have_ to do and effort is put in appropriately. Overcrowding is a pretty frequent issue and organisation is generally poor.

I've come to the conclusion I don't really care if the university is "research-intensive" because I've seen very little benefit from it. How much of a fundamentals course on data structures or software engineering is going to involve cutting edge research?

The TEF scores (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/what-tef-r...) over here have been pretty interesting too. A lot of the lower ranked institutions have come away with much higher results than some of the traditionally 'better' universities.

[foldr]

>For some staff, teaching is clearly something they _have_ to do and effort is put in appropriately.

Well yes, of course. People don't go into academia because they want to teach. Academics are also not rewarded significantly for good teaching.

[BeetleB]

And "of course", this is one argument not to go to a top ranked research university for undergrad.

BTW, the low ranked university I went to was a research university. Professors got tenure/promotions based on that and not based on teaching. They still cared about teaching. It is at some level a matter of culture. If a top ranked university is worse when it comes to teaching, the reality is the university doesn't value education. Let's not use research as an excuse for poor education.

[foldr]

The point is that you can't expect academics to necessarily love or enjoy teaching, as they're not selected for that trait. Of course people should do their jobs to an acceptable standard. But expecting academics to routinely do more than that is expecting something you wouldn't expect of people in other professions. Do you expect your accountant to do your accounts with enthusiasm?

[learc83]

I went to a middle ranked university for undergrad, but it was ranked top 2 in the country for undergraduate teaching.

Undergraduate teaching ranks should be weighted more in overall rankings since that's supposed to be the school's primary function and all.

[lol768]

>Well yes, of course. People don't go into academia because they want to teach. Academics are also not rewarded significantly for good teaching.

When student tuition fees make up the bulk of a department's income, is this reasonable and fair to students? Are they getting value for money?

Some institutions have separate teaching and research promotion tracks mapped to equivalent salary grades.

[foldr]

> When student tuition fees make up the bulk of a department's income, is this reasonable and fair to students? Are they getting value for money?

It's difficult to say, isn't it? How does one determine how much a university education "should" cost?

I don't see any easy solution. If we convert research-focused universities into teaching-focused institutions, what happens to the research? If we create new and separate teaching-focused institutions, who pays?