Uh oh, I'm starting to believe my own rhetoric

Over at Mad Melancholic Feminista there's a spirited debate over my previous post on the conceit of liberal arts colleges. Basically, evidence was offered of the efficacy of liberal arts education (disproportionate share of science Ph.D's, CEO's, etc.) which a moment's reflection proved to be inadequate (failure to control for selectivity, students' socioeconomic background, etc.). I'm still waiting for some good evidence that teaching is better at LAC's and that it matters in terms of student applications and outcomes.

But I'm still musing over this comparison between places like Harvard, where great minds teach mediocre courses, versus places like Gettysburg, where mediocre minds teach great courses. Which type of institution produces better outcomes for students? My understanding is that undergraduates from Harvard - and Yale, Princeton, Stanford, U-Penn, etc. - do pretty well after graduation, despite the lousy teaching that they are reportedly subjected to. What accounts for their success? I can think of three possibilities:

1. The Harvards of the world compensate for lousy teaching by having a brilliant and accomplished faculty - exposure to great minds is a substitute for good teaching in the production of education.

2. Students who enroll at the Harvards are so smart and self-directed that they don't need teaching; just give them the textbooks and they learn it all up just like that.

3. A college degree isn't about the education at all - it's merely a way to certify to potential employers that some objective party thinks you're smart, that you have the discipline and social skills to survive four years in a large organization, and that you aren't a criminal.

If the answer is #1, then we should ask whether we at Gettysburg have the right mix of teaching and research. Going to, say, a 2-2 teaching load might result in a faculty that cares less about teaching and more about research; but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing from an educational outcomes standpoint (seeing as most of the colleges that we aspire to be more like have a 2-2 load, I'd say the evidence is that it would not in fact be a bad thing).

If the answer is #2, then it would make sense for us to pour considerable effort into teaching. The logic here would be, our students are not particularly smart or self-directed compared to those at the Harvards, therefore they need good teaching. But as our applicant pool improves (and by all accounts it has, dramatically, over the past few years), we ought to be able to expect more from our students, and therefore devote less effort to teaching.

If the answer is #3, then God help us all. I'll do what I jolly well want to do with my time irrespective of the educational benefits: teach well when the spirit moves me, do research the rest of the time. (Oh, and run the Economics Department with an iron fist!)

Whatever the reason for the good outcomes generated by institutions with lousy teaching, it seems to me there is little reason for us to spend more time and resources promoting good teaching than we already do, and maybe some good reasons for spending less.