註冊 登入



打印

請問world top 100大學之間既教學質量會唔會有明顯差別?

請問world top 100大學之間既教學質量會唔會有明顯差別? E-mail 此主題給朋友

[隱藏]
例如牛劍vs城大

[ 本帖最後由 AssLicker 於 2019-3-16 03:41 AM 編輯 ]



精選樓盤
引用:
原帖由 AssLicker 於 2019-3-15 09:37 PM 發表

例如牛劍vs城大
香港城大各世界排名

QS : 55
Times : 110
美國新聞:172
軟科:201-300



天行剛健 自強不息
引用:
原帖由 乾為天 於 2019-3-15 09:47 PM 發表




香港城大各世界排名

QS : 55
Times : 110
美國新聞:172
軟科:201-300
QS被踢爆係買排名



回覆 引用 TOP

有。US top 5 比 top 50 已覺有分別。


[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 hamsterman 於 2019-3-16 02:30 AM 發表

有。US top 5 比 top 50 已覺有分別。
無分別 名校將課程上晒網 任你睇 分別只係學生水平



I will tell you the differences. Point of reference: A math/CS/physics class at Caltech vs one, say at a UC or a UT.


What they are teaching you will be roughly the same. Classes at a large state school may dump down the materials somewhat, mostly because of the students. From a professor expertise point of view, undergrad (i assume we are talking about undergrad, not master/PhD) stuff is trivial enough that a top expert may not be teaching it better, because it is about teaching, not the materials. In fact, if teaching quality is all you care about, i would bet that Santa Clara University probably can beat most of the elite school. From a teaching point of view, i have PhD students teaching better than faculty just because they care more.


Here is another example. My sophomore physics prof has a nobel prize and even Richard Feymann showed up (i think that was his last) for a guest lecture. Material-wise, quality-of-the-lecture-wise, i don't think that beat a good UC/UT/UM teacher.


BTW, elite schools professors also have little incentive to teach undergrad well since they are mostly evaluated on research. Let me give you an extreme example. Do you think Stanford or MIT will give grief to a super star (say a nobel laureate or a field medalist, or even just a EIC of a top journal) just because they don't prep for an undergrad class? If any of them teach well, it is because they like to, not because they have to. Even at a large state research university, the saying is that you just need to teach well enough, teaching is really not the top criterion for evaluations, particularly regarding tenure. 


The benefit of going to an elite school is really not about they can teach the material better. It is about access to top expert, and the opportunities to be inspired by and work with them. Many of these schools (Caltech, for example, is famous for it) encourage and give lots of opportunities, even for undergrads, to work on research project with faculty. 



Having said all that, i would add that what i said only apply to schools with adequate resources. If you go all the way down to some community colleges, or lower ranking teaching schools, they have to put any body, with the right qualification, in front of students because of budget constraints. And the teaching there can be bad. 



回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 hamsterman 於 2019-3-16 02:30 AM 發表

有。US top 5 比 top 50 已覺有分別。
Best Undergraduate Teaching

https://www.usnews.com/best-coll ... ergraduate-teaching



天行剛健 自強不息

回覆 引用 TOP

講到尾咪學生質素既分別囉 名校學生兩野就學識 甘無聊咪比 d野你研究下囉

雞校學生學習都有難度 仲邊有精力做研究啊!
智商有限 當然要慢慢教
教得仲好啦

名校通常自己搞掂 教授當你天才甘教 火箭速度  即係食自己.



引用:
原帖由 AssLicker 於 2019-3-15 09:37 PM 發表

例如牛劍vs城大
美國 普史,英國 牛劍;都算係少數教學質素不錯 頂級名牌大學

[ 本帖最後由 乾為天 於 2019-3-16 11:37 AM 編輯 ]



天行剛健 自強不息

回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 加藤玲奈子 於 2019-3-16 10:09 AM 發表




無分別 名校將課程上晒網 任你睇 分別只係學生水平
I beg to differ. Education is more than just what’s found on a pdf. Each course textbook is an inch to two inches thick, profs are not gonna waste time walking you through everything, so course materials are selective. Even from distilled course notes, emphasis and depth of topics are going to be different from prof to prof and from school to school. What you really learn from are the problem sets, projects, and tutorials/sessions and not from the big lectures, and you will see differences in levels there as well, as the expectation is higher in top schools. You will also find a resource difference if your class has a dependency on expensive equipments which will affect what you can learn. I’m speaking from first hand experience.



回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 AssLicker 於 2019-3-15 09:37 PM 發表

例如牛劍vs城大
又一個永遠沒答案既問題!
俾我感覺,教學方法都唔同,一間要求你識咗先去探討相關問題,上課前已派下堂資料,返去識做先好黎上堂,一間在課堂上用大量PPT,把內容由頭到尾講。分别見過,聽過上台堂方式就了解。
考試方法又唔同,一間要你明,一間要你背。
呢個又會同學生本身能力有直接關係,你要求學生自己返去學會先上堂,能力差就只會發夢,考試好可能白卷,咁就只能退而求其次,只要求背,至少知些少。



引用:
原帖由 IWC-Rolex 於 2019-3-17 11:46 AM 發表



又一個永遠沒答案既問題!
俾我感覺,教學方法都唔同,一間要求你識咗先去探討相關問題,上課前已派下堂資料,返去識做先好黎上堂,一間在課堂上用大量PPT,把內容由頭到尾講。分别見過,聽過上台堂方式就了解。
考試方法又唔同,一間要你明,一間要你背。
呢個又會同學生本身能力有直接關係,你要求學生自己返去學會先上堂,能力差就只會發夢,考試好可能白卷,咁就只能退而求其次,只要求背,至少知些少。 ...
城大同牛劍無可比性 城大學生平均質素大概中國排前一百名 牛劍平均質素是港大醫科甘上下。

學生質素和教學的內容有很大相關性。城大絕大部分學生只係普通人
你很難搵到有學生過目不忘 舉一反三 基礎扎實這種人。 世界級名校就有很多



回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 加藤玲奈子 於 2019-3-16 11:21 AM 發表

講到尾咪學生質素既分別囉 名校學生兩野就學識 甘無聊咪比 d野你研究下囉

雞校學生學習都有難度 仲邊有精力做研究啊!
智商有限 當然要慢慢教
教得仲好啦

名校通常自己搞掂 教授當你天才甘教 火箭速度  即係食自己. ...
係你親身經驗?



回覆 引用 TOP

引用:
原帖由 加藤玲奈子 於 2019-3-16 10:09 AM 發表

無分別 名校將課程上晒網 任你睇 分別只係學生水平
課程似乎都有一定分別.
原因正正係因為學生水平唔同....所以後面既學校, 要就住黎教.

具體呢個例子呢, 我就未睇過.
但係我就見過好似某D US top 100-150水平既學校, D(math major)課程水平齋睇syllabus既topic and textbook就睇到同香港(三大)既都差一年.
如果同world top比較, 可能相差再遠少少.......


同埋另一個問題就係, 有時有D比較唔夠勁既學校, 因為夠勁, 會諗住深造/搞研究既學生太少
搞到某D比較難, 或者比較理論既course會唔夠學生揀, 搞到開唔成....

[ 本帖最後由 竹劍 於 2019-3-18 06:27 PM 編輯 ]



回覆 引用 TOP

[隱藏]
引用:
原帖由 AssLicker 於 2019-3-15 09:37 PM 發表

例如牛劍vs城大
有邊個有資格comment?



mazingerv1

回覆 引用 TOP

 16 12
 提示:支持鍵盤翻頁 ←左 右→
[按此隱藏 Google 建議的相符內容]






重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,香港討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意 見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。香港討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言 (刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知 ), 同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權 。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。


Copyright©2003- Discuss.com.hk Limited. All Right Reserved.
版權所有,不得轉載。