<p>Nice comparing all the LACs to Harvard and MIT what a fair comparison.</p>
<p>TABLE 3. Top 50 baccalaureate-origin institutions of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients, by institutional control<br>
and 2005 Carnegie classification<br>
Rank Academic institution 2005 Carnegie classification S&E doctorates </p>
<p>na All baccalaureate-origin institutions na 282,091
na Foreign institutions na 87,836
na Unknown institutions na 28,280
1 University of California-Berkeley Research-very high 3,199
2 Cornell University, all campuses Research-very high 2,536
3 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor Research-very high 2,181
4 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Research-very high 2,057
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research-very high 1,867
6 Pennsylvania State University, main campus Research-very high 1,817
7 Harvard University Research-very high 1,775
8 University of Wisconsin-Madison Research-very high 1,721
9 University of Texas at Austin Research-very high 1,700
10 University of California-Los Angeles Research-very high 1,674
11 University of California-Davis Research-very high 1,499
12 University of California-San Diego Research-very high 1,441
13 University of Florida Research-very high 1,382
14 Brigham Young University, main campus Research-high 1,368
15 Stanford University Research-very high 1,351
16 Texas A&M University, main campus Research-very high 1,351
17 Purdue University, main campus Research-very high 1,211
18 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Research-very high 1,210
19 Rutgers the State University of New Jersey New Brunswick Research-very high 1,205
20 University of Virginia, main campus Research-very high 1,201
21 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Research-very high 1,179
22 Michigan State University Research-very high 1,147
23 Princeton University Research-very high 1,135
24 University of Washington-Seattle Research-very high 1,117
25 Ohio State University, main campus Research-very high 1,115
26 University of Pennsylvania Research-very high 1,097
27 University of Maryland at College Park Research-very high 1,089
28 Yale University Research-very high 1,087
29 Brown University Research-very high 1,076
30 Duke University Research-very high 1,050
31 University of Colorado at Boulder Research-very high 1,009
32 University of Arizona Research-very high 967
33 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Research-very high 940
34 University of California-Santa Cruz Research-very high 892
35 University of Chicago Research-very high 873
36 University of California-Santa Barbara Research-very high 846
37 Northwestern University Research-very high 807
38 University of California-Irvine Research-very high 795
39 North Carolina State University at Raleigh Research-very high 790
40 Boston University Research-very high 782
41 Iowa State University Research-very high 776
42 University of Massachusetts at Amherst Research-very high 772
43 Indiana University at Bloomington Research-very high 765
44 Georgia Institute of Technology, main campus Research-very high 758
45 California Institute of Technology Research-very high 713
46 SUNY at Buffalo Research-very high 708
47 College of William and Mary Research-high 698
48 Johns Hopkins University Research-very high 691
49 Columbia University in the City of New York Research-very high 690
50 University of Notre Dame Research-very high 683
na = not applicable. </p>
<p>NOTE: Institutions with the same number of doctorate recipients are listed alphabetically. </p>
<p>SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Earned Doctorates.</p>
<p>There’s plenty of scientists who think “big-name” universities aren’t paying enough attention to teaching.</p>
<p>[University</a> cuts show science is far from saved : Nature News](<a href=“http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110112/full/469133a.html]University”>University cuts show science is far from saved | Nature)</p>
<p>[Changing</a> the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities | Science/AAAS](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/152.full]Changing”>http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/152.full)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Scientists</a> Fault Universities as Favoring Research Over Teaching - Research - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Scientists-Fault-Universities/125944]Scientists”>http://chronicle.com/article/Scientists-Fault-Universities/125944)</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>One of the reasons I continue to read CC every day is that I get to laugh. This posted by you made me laugh today:</p>
<p>Post #15</p>
<p>Teaching skills can be taught but being among the best in a field cannot.</p>
<p>According to you, the best must have been born the best and never had to go to school!</p>
<p>“There is no point in comparing “productivity” between LACs and large universities.”</p>
<p>If you mean eventual grad school productivity, maybe for atmosphere. There seems to be a small number of high school seniors who prefer to study at a small school as part of a majority of like-minded colleagues bent on eventual advanced grad school. Clearly the majority of high school seniors aren’t thinking about this.</p>
<p>No, teaching skills are lower order skills that can be learned by most people who can get through college. Being a top scientist/academic requires higher order skills and drive that few have. See Teach for America</p>
<p>^ barrons, </p>
<p>lower order teaching requires lower order skills, that’s for certain.</p>
<p>However, excellent teaching requires the highest order of skill. </p>
<p>How about an analogy: Is a trial lawyer lower order, and a technical attorney higher order?</p>
<p>I’d say teaching requires people skills which are very separate from academic skills. But a recommendation letter coming from a top scholar in the field will always carry more weight than one from the best teacher in the world.</p>
<p>*My point was simply that among those students pursuing PhD studies, students with undergraduate degrees from LACs did not do as well as those from top research universities essentially negating any supposed advantage from smaller classes or closer interaction with faculty. *</p>
<p>UNDERGRADUATE ORIGINS OF PH.D.S</p>
<p>PERCENTAGE RANKING OF PH.D.S, BY ACADEMIC FIELD, CONFERRED UPON GRADUATES OF LISTED INSTITUTIONS</p>
<p>[Why</a> are there so many LACs listed?](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html=]Why”>http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html=)</p>
<p>Link fixed: [Why</a> are there so many LACs listed?](<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]Why”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p>The reason: school size is considered (Barron’s list above is not per capita)</p>
<p>And school size is also considered in grad admissions. No grad school will take 30 people from the same school which puts large schools at some disadvantage. They want a diverse class with many different backgrounds. Compare small with small and large with large and you have something. Trying to cut across size brings in all sorts of other noise. Maybe LAC grads are more oriented to staying academe while others want to work in the economy ASAP. You have two groups with very different goals and viewpoints and to make direct comparisons on one variable is not supportable as proof of anything as to the quality of education.</p>