<p>what are the pros and cons of a liberal arts education? what are some good liberal arts schools that have excellent sociology programs?</p>
<p>Pros of a liberal arts education include:
Small class sizes
Hands-on learning opportunities
Individually-designed majors
Strong advising system; advisors know students very well unlike @ large state schools
Strong sense of community on campus
Professors, not graduate students, teach most courses
Opportunity to get to know professors well and get better recommendations from them for grad school</p>
<p>Some cons (these certainly don't apply to all LACs) include:
Limited housing options
Fewer majors to choose from
Fewer physical resources
Smaller libraries
Fewer entertainment and social opportunities
Less emphasis on sports programs </p>
<p>Pitzer College,Skidmore College, Grinnell College, Marlboro College, and Williams College LACs with top-notch sociology programs. U of Chicago is not an LAC but has one of the strongest sociology programs in the nation.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that you don't have to attend a "liberal arts college" to obtain a "liberal arts education." You can obtain a liberal arts education at just about any large university. </p>
<p>The term "liberal arts" originally meant those studies befitting the citizens of a free society. The term is generally used today to describe an undergraduate education that rather than being focussed on preparation for a specific vocation is intended to develop the student's general intellectual abilities, through exposure to the various modes of learning (the humanities, the social science, the physical sciences, quantitative analysis, the arts, and the languages and cultures of other people), coupled with more in-depth exposure to a particular discipline (the major). Liberal arts graduates have generally spent a lot of time refining their powers of expression, written and otherwise.</p>
<p>A liberal arts education is great preparation for law school, business school, or medical school. It's a fine preparation for teaching, or for journalism as well. </p>
<p>The fact that a liberal arts education doesn't prepare you for a specific job is both its main advantage and its big disadvantage. There's an old saying that a B.A. and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee. (I'm aware that fifty cents won't buy you a cup of coffee anywhere anymore, but I did say it was an old saying.) Graduating from a college in a degree in sociology isn't for everybody. There are few professional sociologists, outside academia. But in an economy where the average person is expected to change careers more than once, a broad, rigorous liberal arts education may prove to be an excellent preparation not just for leading a well examined life of the mind, but also for a work life that should span several decades in a rapidly changing world.</p>
<p>There are a few liberal arts colleges (St. Johns may be the best exemplar) that focus exclusively on giving their students a classical liberal arts education, in lieu of the more typical program that you'll find at the college of arts and sciences of a university, or at most liberal arts colleges. If you're interested in the liberal arts, I would recommend finding a school that's a good fit overall for you academically and socially rather than focussing too much on how a particular department may be rated. In general, though, you're most likely to find a sociology department with a large number of course offerings at what is sometimes referred to as a "university college," or the college of arts and sciences (or letters and sciences, as they're sometimes known) associated with a research university.</p>
<p>Sociology LACs (sorry if I repeat some already mentioned):
Amherst, Bucknell, Colby, Franklin and Marshall, Gettysburg, Grinnell, Oberlin, Pitzer, Wheaton, Williamette, Pomona, Colorado College, Connecticut College, Wesleyan, Earlham, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Carleton, Williams, Bard, Colgate, Hamilton, Hobart, Vassar, Reed, Dickinson, Haverford, Lafayette, Rhodes, Middlebury, Belloit</p>
<p>well, what really attracts me to liberal arts colleges is the whole community feel. in addition, i learn best through the socratic method, and large lectures just don't appeal to me at all. would you say that an undergraduate degree at a liberal arts college would not prepare me as well for a graduate degree at a large university because of the broadness in curriculum and the sort of purely intellectual, sheltered feel? (eh, if that made any sense)</p>
<p>and also, would it be fair to say that liberal arts colleges generally focus on undergraduate education more than graduate?</p>
<p>On the contrary, liberal arts degrees are excellent preparation for university grad schools and medical school and law school, and as you read more you'll find that there are some small LAC's that have records for highest admit rates to grad schools. The programs foster and develop critical thinking and communication skills.</p>
<p>If that is your favored learning style, you should check out the St. John's (Anapolis and New Mexico) program. St John's is one of the small LAC's that do have really great grad school admit rates (in many disciplines). No lectures at all. All classes are very small discussion classes facilitated by Tutors. You won't be studying sociology, but you can do that in grad school.</p>
<p>actually, i really want to study sociology during undergrad; do LACs prevent me from getting deeper into that than i would at a regular university?</p>
<p>No LAC's generally will not prevent you from getting deeper....only that St.John's is special and does not have majors. All student's study the exact same (great books) cirriculum. You are really making too many assumptions about LAC's and uni's, that just aren't factual (like sheltered from the real world, etc.). For instance, UChicago is an exceptional school with a great research reputation, but it's undergrad school is very LAC like. They also have a very demanding core requirement and until recently didn't have majors (just concentrations). I like the UChicago philosopy where you don't declare your major the first couple of years. They say that most people will change their intended major and they like to to go in with an open mind.</p>
<p>I just wanted to thank Greybeard for a spectacularly thorough (yet relatively concise) overview of what a liberal arts education is!</p>
<p>LAC Pros:
Smaller and intimate setting
Professors good at teaching
Focus purely on undergrads</p>
<p>LAC Cons:
Limited major offerings
Limited class oferings
Nowhere to hide
Few social and entertainment opportunities
Spoonfeeding students hinders maturity</p>
<p>RESEARCH UNIVERSITY Pros:
Wide range of majors
Unique classes and variety of course offerings
More research opportunities
Lack of spoonfeeding teaches students self-reliance
Multitude of social, intellectual and entertainment opportunities
Faculty up to date with most recent trends.</p>
<p>RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Cons:
Sink or swim / trial by fire approach ot education
Students much share professors and resources with graduate students
Just another face in the crowd</p>
<p>Top LAC Sociology programs:
Amherst College
Beloit College
Bennington College
Carleton College
Darmouth College
Grinnell College
Haverford College
Middlebury College
Oberlin College
Pomona College
Ripon College
Swarthmore College</p>
<p>Top Research University Sociology programs:
Columbia College
Cornell University
Harvard University
Northwestern University
Princeton University
Stanford University *
University of California-Berkeley *
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Chicago *
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor *
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill *
University of Wisconsin-Madison *
Yale University</p>
<p>Schools with an * are generally regarded to be the best in Sociology.</p>
<p>Alexandre, there is not spoonfeeding at liberal arts colleges!! I don't know why you say that.......at these big unis you love so much you can sit in the back of the class (or not even go) and no one would even notice...at smaller institutions you're expected to contribute.....its part of your grade.....not spoonfeeding but high expectations....</p>
<p>There is no need to take it personally DKE. I never said expectations weren't high at LACs. They obviously are. Swarthmore and Carleton are among the toughest schools out there. At any top university, the expectations are going to be high. But there is a lot of handholding that goes on at LACs...and there ought to be because that is what LACs advertize. That is why many parents send their kids to LACs.</p>
<p>Funny. Having attended a LAC, taken courses at a major large research university, and taught at a smaller research university of very high quality, I found it was the large research university that substantially held back the maturity of the students. Not all of them, of course, but on the whole, they had fewer relationships with older faculty, fewer mentoring relationships, fewer close role models, less good advising (and less of it) where they could benefit from the experience of older folks. There was more drinking, more drugs, fraternities, football games, and more downright immature behavior than I can remember witnessing anywhere else. </p>
<p>The number of students sitting in the back of the room dazed and lost was hardly a sign of maturity.</p>
<p>Mini, wheter you like it or not, there are advantages and disadvantages to both research universities and LACs. I admit that fully. I would never say one type of school is better than the other. It really depends on what one wants. There is no need to be insulted when people point out the negatives of a LAC. There are downsides to attending a LAC just as their are downsides to attneding research universities.</p>
<p>I've never heard of a LAC that advertised handholding.....what they advertise is, as Mini pointed out, access to professors that is difficult (if not impossible) to get at the bigger places.....I was really surprised to read on CC that Yale has resident academic advisors to help students with their work? I've never heard of that before....Is that common or unique to Yale?</p>
<p>I have no idea what "handholding" refers to. Better advising perhaps? I still remember the indifference of my first adviser, at a large university, who couldn't care less about anyone other than his grad students. Being able to talk about course intricacies/ issues directly with the professors, as opposed to only TAs? Either way you talk, it's just a question of the relative levels of expertise of the listeners.</p>
<p>I advised my daughter that it would be easier to get away with being unprepared on a daily basis, or even not showing up at all, at a large university. In a lecture hall with 400 people nobody knows or cares if you're there or not. You can just read the text and show up for the exams. This can be considered an advantage for someone who doesn't want to "put out" on a daily basis. Or if the professor can't teach.</p>
<p>She spurned this suggestion and is at an LAC. She has to show up for her classes. She has a class with seven students this semester. No disappearing there.</p>
<p>I don't view this as "handholding", actually it is more demanding.</p>
<p>In other posts, some people have suggested that class size is not that different at some large universities. While this was most certainly not my personal experience, if this is true then the level of "handholding" should be no different. Depending on what "handholding" means.</p>
<p>I don't know what "spoonfeeding" means, in this context, either. More effective teaching? More effort directed to effective classes?</p>
<p>Also this thread seems to have gotten sidetracked on a discussion of LACs. To re-emphasize what Greybeard said earlier:</p>
<p>Keep in mind that you don't have to attend a "liberal arts college" to obtain a "liberal arts education." You can obtain a liberal arts education at just about any large university".</p>
<p>Few social and entertainment opportunities???
Spoonfeeding students hinders maturity????</p>
<p>Sorry, Alexandre, no one is offended because you pointed out cons of LACs - the problem is that the cons are wrong. My son, nieces and nephews at top LACS are busy 24/7 and complain constantly that there is so much to choose from to do - there are always shows, visiting lecturers, parties, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Their complaint is that they always have to turn things down because they've got so many other options. And the events are more personalized - my nephew's friend, at a tiny LAC, went to a Wynton Marsalis concert and then played basketball for an hour afterwards with Wynton! That's just ONE example.</p>
<p>As for "spoonfeeding" - what the heck does THAT mean? It impies a mother giving her infant baby food! My kids had workloads and reading freshman year that rivaled some of the stuff I did in an Ivy Grad school. They are having a much deeper time of it than I did at my U. because they are working directly with professors on publishable research - something my Ivy limited to grad students.</p>
<p>Monydad, I only had 5 or 6 classes that had over 100 students while at Michigan. The remaining 40 or so classes took at Michigan had anywhere from 6 (six) to ~70 students...the majority of them between 15 and 40. Skipping class, even with 70 students, was almost impossible because professors knew us all by name. </p>
<p>I never had a TA led class (I skipped basic writing and Calc I and II which are seomtimes taught by TAs) and my interaction with professors at Michigan was certainly not lacking. If I ever need any advice or wanted to sit and talk to a professor, I could do so without much hassle. </p>
<p>Vonronwe, my father is a PhD in Economics and many of things I studied in college were things he was doing as a PhD student. For example, my intermediate Microenomics class and project that I took late in my Freshman year dealt with concepts my father had only touched upon as a PhD student. Times have changed. As for limited social offerings, I meant just that. Large schools like Harvard, Stanford and Cornell have over 500 clubs and organizations to chose from. They host major concerts, sporting events etc... on a weekly basis. They have hundreds of international students and faculty. It is simply not the same at a LAC. LACs are more limited in many ways. And I am well aware of how difficult LACs are. I have many friends who went to Swarthmore and Carleton and Bowdoin etc... and they certainly had punishing work loads. But at the same time, professors at LACs are ALWAYS there to help students. That is good...but it is almost always abused and in the real world, one's manager will almost never be there to help.</p>
<p>I will stand by my pros and cons. I never said LACs were not as good as research universities...nor are they better. They are very different. And I never said LACs were easy either.</p>
<p>here is something I found on college confidential ask-the-dean</p>
<p>"Question: What are the advantages or disadvantages of a large college vs. a small one? </p>
<p>I address this question in my book Panicked Parents' Guide to College Admissions (Petersons 2002). Below (in bold), you'll find an excerpt. Personally, I like the idea of a small but not tiny school--under 3,000 or so but not below about 1,200--for the undergrad years. You'll have a better chance of making your mark on campus when you're not one of a huge multitude. However, some students really thrive in a huge university community. As my co-author Sid Dalby likes to say, "It's easier to make a big college small than a small college big."</p>
<p>A large university can be excitingor impersonal. A small school can be supportiveor stifling. Among the most common reasons for transferring, size is near the top of the list, with too big and too small getting pretty even play. Small colleges commonly translate into smaller classes and more faculty contact. They can, however, be too homogeneous or lacking in specific curricular offerings. Large schools may offer opportunities such as editing a daily newspaper or studying Swahili that a smaller school cant equal. Extroverts and self-starters may thrive on a big campus. Students who are shy or who lack the self-discipline to work when there are endless temptations to do otherwise will probably be better served by a small college where they wont be as likely to fall through the cracks.</p>
<p>One "mistake" that I've seen high school students make is to opt for large urban institutions with the belief that this will translate into a great social life. While cities do provide tons of diversions, these students often head off in myriad different directions in the evenings or on weekends--on their own or in small groups--claiming that there is no campus social life at all. Some can find the experience pretty lonely ... or, at least, expensive.</p>
<p>While it may sound counterintuitive, smaller, more isolated colleges may provide the best social environment because--with no place nearby to go--students hang together and develop their own on-campus social networks ... and (usually free) fun. </p>
<p>The bottom line: personal preference will play a key role in determining what the "advantages" and "disadvantages" of each type of school will be for you."</p>