I was in a different area of public service many years ago before DH was in education. What I was both trained and learned along the way is it's not up to the individual government worker what civil rights a citizen is entitled to, if it's in the job description, it's part of the system and paperwork is up to specs, I'm a neutral processor and it doesn't matter if the person in question was a dirtbag. "Favor" was a dangerous word. We were compelled to inform that we will look in to it and if it was part of our job description we would do it, we do not do favors. At times that meant the worst dirtballs exercised their civil rights to the max (rudely, too) because they knew the system so well, and others who weren't so bad who did not know system exploits maybe had a harder time but our hands were tied we could not 'help'.
Point? When you get static ask if it is their job description to process a 504 underscoring you have the binding paperwork all in order and up to date.
On school choice I'd pick a school over quality of program and not school size, tier. Some top tier programs run from non-top tier schools. Looking even further ahead a thriving, involved alumni assocation could be important for networking, as are the faculty ties to industry, and how rich the internship choices are for students. Not to harp on adjuncts themselves but it might not be a good choice for a place top heavy on adjuncts, it depends on how they are professionally qualified versus academically qualified. Maybe CM has better advice.
Not necessarily "better" so much as to note "in addition to" and science/math/engineering specific.
MANY of the faculty in those disciplines will be dealing with a language barrier in addition to the cognitive one in understand a student's needs when those are "special" or covered under ADA. This is certainly
highly problematic at research institutions, and less so at undergraduate ones. Be aware that the
student often matters as much as the institution's basic research reputation in determining how good an education can be had in a particular subjecct.
Put another way? I'd look MUCH more closely at
where an undergraduate program SENDS ITS GRADS than I would at what publications its faculty generate year to year, or in grant $$, or in terms of other externalities of that nature. Those things are largely connected to
graduate education. Many students/parents get taken in by that phenomenon as undergrads in the sciences; but the bottom line is that PHENOMENAL grad schools-- legendary ones, even-- do
not necessarily have "good" (well, 'better,' perhaps) undergraduate education programs in those same disciplines. If it's all about the research, then often those colleges/departments don't really see undergrads as anything but a necessary means to the ultimate end.
Personally, most of the successful scientists that I know (and a fair number of the successful medical professionals, too) went to small-to-medium sized public institutions-- frequently those
without PhD programs-- for undergraduate studies, and THEN went to big-name schools for graduate work in their interest area. Honestly? That's what I'd advise serious and promising students to do. The reason is that at a PhD granting institution, undergraduates are somewhat
less likely to get hands-on experience themselves, and very much more likely to be handled by
adjunct, teaching faculty, and GRADUATE student TA's. That is such a mixed bag that it is a serious source of risk on the LTFA management front, as well.
Even with the very best of intentions, a 24-26yo graduate student who speaks poor English isn't going to be of a lot of help in maintaining a food-free environment or in recognizing risks/helping to work around them. First of all, they don't really have a lot of "authority" to, even if they did try.
I wouldn't necessarily steer by institutional
size. That's not the factor to look at, IMO. There are tiny graduate programs, and there are enormous undergraduate ones. It just all depends on what the ultimate
mission of the institution/department happens to be. For undergraduate training, look for one that sees that as a serious goal, rather than the ugly half-sibling of the golden child of the graduate program.
The factor to examine is how much time real, tenured/tenure-track faculty actually spend in
student contact, and how much of that contact is lower-division, undergraduate time. What percentage of freshman labs are taught by graduate students and even undergraduate teaching assistants?
Those courses with "TBA" instructors that are a revolving door of graduate students who can't get RA's to support themselves are where there are going to be major implementation inconsistancies and problems. In my experience, anyway.
A good college education can be had
many places. A good
foundation for future study may also be found many places, often those which are not known for that particular field of study.
Now, would I send a student who was interested in molecular biology to Chico State? Errr... probably not my first choice, no. But for separate reasons, I'd also steer such a student away from Berkeley or UW
for undergraduate studies. If it's a likely area of interest for
graduate studies, and you're looking at a student with the capacity for a likely terminal degree at some point-- then save it for that. Another reason for doing that has to do with "diversification" of educational experience. This is something that matters a great deal professionally in science PhD's and MS degrees. It's the reason why even the top 10 leaders tend NOT to 'keep' their undergrads for grad school. It's not that they aren't good students... it's that it
isn't right for the students themselves, in most cases, to have such an insular educational background. The exception is in Vet and Pharmacy schools, where many programs prefer the institution's own undergrads in considering applications.
Hopefully that makes sense and is helpful.
