<p>it seems the schools good in math & science are all big universities...</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd College is a good LAC for Math/Science. Caltech isn't technically an LAC, but it's a very small school, (~850 undergrads, ~1200 grads).</p>
<p>Reed College in Portland, Oregon is good for both. It is small--around 1350 undergrads and only a few grads:
<a href="http://web.reed.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://web.reed.edu/</a></p>
<p>Univ of Chicago is another excellent LAC, It is a bit larger--4400 undergrads and 9000 grad students.
<a href="http://www.uchicago.edu/uchi/about/%5B/url%5D">http://www.uchicago.edu/uchi/about/</a></p>
<p>Dartmouth and Wesleyan are both strong in the sciences.</p>
<p>Many LACs are very stong in sciences -- several posts have hit the boards recently on this topic. Please do a search and you will find good information. </p>
<p>Interesteddad (I think) posted this a while back and it's appeared on several threads -- here it is again. Good luck.</p>
<p>Here are the 100 colleges an universities that have the highest percentage of their graduates going on to get a PhD in science, math, or engineering over the most recent 10 year period. It might give you some good ideas:</p>
<p>PhDs per 1000 graduates </p>
<p>Academic field: All Engineering, Hard Science, and Math
PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database</p>
<p>Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads</p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 34%
2 Harvey Mudd College 24%
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 16%
4 Reed College 10%
5 Rice University 9%
6 Swarthmore College 8%
7 Princeton University 8%
8 Carleton College 7%
9 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 7%
10 University of Chicago 7%
11 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 7%
12 Case Western Reserve University 7%
13 Harvard University 6%
14 Carnegie Mellon University 6%
15 Johns Hopkins University 6%
16 Haverford College 6%
17 Grinnell College 6%
18 Cornell University, All Campuses 6%
19 Kalamazoo College 5%
20 Stanford University 5%
21 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 5%
22 Yale University 5%
23 Cooper Union 5%
24 Oberlin College 5%
25 Lawrence University 5%
26 Bryn Mawr College 5%
27 Williams College 5%
28 Pomona College 5%
29 Colorado School of Mines 4%
30 Bowdoin College 4%
31 Earlham College 4%
32 Brown University 4%
33 University of Rochester 4%
34 University of California-Berkeley 4%
35 Wabash College 4%
36 Duke University 4%
37 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 4%
38 Amherst College 4%
39 Stevens Institute of Technology 4%
40 St Olaf College 4%
41 Hendrix College 4%
42 Beloit College 4%
43 University of Missouri, Rolla 4%
44 University of California-San Francisco 4%
45 Occidental College 4%
46 Alfred University, Main Campus 4%
47 Allegheny College 4%
48 Whitman College 4%
49 College of Wooster 4%
50 SUNY College of Environmental Sci & Forestry 4%
51 Mount Holyoke College 4%
52 Bates College 4%
53 College of William and Mary 4%
54 Knox College 4%
55 Franklin and Marshall College 3%
56 Georgia Institute of Technology, Main Campus 3%
57 Washington University 3%
58 Long Island University Southampton Campus 3%
59 Macalester College 3%
60 University of California-San Diego 3%
61 Dartmouth College 3%
62 Wellesley College 3%
63 Trinity University 3%
64 Juniata College 3%
65 Ripon College 3%
66 University of California-Davis 3%
67 Florida Institute of Technology 3%
68 Polytechnic University 3%
69 Michigan Technological University 3%
70 Columbia University in the City of New York 3%
71 Lehigh University 3%
72 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 3%
73 Centre College 3%
74 Hampshire College 3%
75 University of Pennsylvania 3%
76 Wesleyan University 3%
77 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 3%
78 Colorado College 3%
79 Bucknell University 3%
80 Davidson College 3%
81 Northwestern Univ 3%
82 Texas Lutheran University 3%
83 St John's College (both campus) 3%
84 Furman University 3%
85 Hope College 3%
86 Clarkson University 2%
87 University of Virginia, Main Campus 2%
88 Illinois Institute of Technology 2%
89 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ 2%
90 Union College (Schenectady, NY) 2%
91 University of California-Santa Cruz 2%
92 Lafayette College 2%
93 Brandeis University 2%
94 University of Dallas 2%
95 Rhodes College 2%
96 University of Notre Dame 2%
97 Middlebury College 2%
98 University of Wisconsin-Madison 2%
99 Colgate University 2%
100 Hiram College 2%</p>
<p>Pretty much any tip-top LAC will be strong in everything. Perhaps more so in the humanities, but there's not a degree you could get from Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc. that someone would scoff at...being a math or science (or engineering, at Swat) major at an LAC would probably just indicate that while you wanted to major in a hard science field, you had a variety of interests and wanted an intimate learning environment.</p>
<p>metermaid,</p>
<p>Is Chicago really a LAC? I've always been under the impression that it's more of a research university.</p>
<p>Occidental's an overlooked program.</p>
<p>Mudd.......</p>
<p>Aside from Mudd of course, some really good ones off the top of my head include Pomona, Williams, Swarthmore, Grinnell (I don't know too much about Amherst, maybe someone could fill me in).</p>
<p>Math
Harvey Mudd, Reed, Pomona, Swarthmore, Williams, Grinnell, St. Olaf, Haverford, Oberlin, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Carleton, Amherst, Rose-Hulman, Bryn Mawr, Mills, Kalamazoo, Knox, Cooper Union, Bowdoin, Vassar, Wellesley, Birmingham Southern College, Whitman College, Union, College of Wooster, Stevens Institute of Technology, Lawrence U, Smith, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Bucknell, Hendrix</p>
<p>Biology
Swarthmore, Reed, Haverford, Kalamazoo, Mount Holyoke, Carleton, Oberlin, Earlham, Harvey Mudd, Wellesley, Amherst, Lawrence U, Grinnell, Bowdoin, Pomona, Hendrix, Davidson, Williams, Bryn Mawr, Bates, Allegheny, Smith, Occidental, St. Olaf, Hiram, Beloit, Macalester, Knox, Hampshire, Bucknell, Colorado College, Juniata</p>
<p>Chemistry
Harvey Mudd, Wabash, Reed, Carleton, Bowdoin, Grinnell, Haverford, Franklin and Marshall, College of Wooster, Bryn Mawr, Allegheny, Knox, Occidental, Bates, Juniata, Kalamazoo, Williams, Swarthmore, Oberlin, Andrews, Holy Cross, St. Olaf, Hendrix, Hope, Davidson, Ursinus, Kenyon, Macalester, Centre, Wellesley, Wheaton, Trinity U, Lawrence U, Colgate, Ripon, Drew, Willamette, Beloit, Augustana, Hiram, Lake Forest, Gustavus Adolphus, Rose-Hulman, Albion, Amherst, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Hamline, Bethel</p>
<p>Physics
Harvey Mudd, Carleton, Reed, Swarthmore, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Haverford, Grinnell, Williams, Whitman, Amherst, Goshen, Marlboro, Rose-Hulman, Stevens Institute of Technology, Oberlin, Wabash, Gustavus Adolphus, Colorado School of Mines, Bryn Mawr College, Lawrence U, Wesleyan U, Bethel, Pomona, William and Mary, St. Olaf College, Beloit, Bates, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Kalamazoo, Earlham, Hastings, Kenyon, Rhodes, Macalester, Franklin and Marshall, Bowdoin, Clarkson</p>
<p>Geology
5 College Consortium, Hamilton, Bates, Williams, Occidental, Bryn Mawr, William & Mary, Sewanee, Caltech, Franklin & Marshall, Carleton, Earlham, Beloit, Wittenberg, Albion, Juniata, Macalester, Pomona, Bowdoin, Whitman</p>
<p>Washington and Jefferson, located south of Pittsburgh, has a very high acceptance rate in the medical/dental/veterinary schools. Even the students who don't go to professional school often get accepted in very good graduate programs in the sciences or land good science-related positions in industry.</p>
<p>Juniata in central Pennsylvania is equally noted for its science programs.</p>
<p>I've posted this query elsewhere (and the indefatigable johnwesley has already replied) but I wonder about the science experience at a small LAC. I know the party line - lots of exposure to professors, LAC experience, summer research, etc., etc. But it would seem there are significant downsides - e.g., small peer group (LACs typically graduate 200-300 social science/English majors, less than 20 chem/physics majors), limited courses and professors (UC Boulder has 60 physics faculty, most LACs have around 6), and, the above post not-withstanding, the research experience is rarely cutting edge. (Please don't bash me on this - as a scientist in academia, journal editor, and grant reviewer I can assert that, if you are interested in research, you do not look for a faculty position at a LAC.)</p>
<p>Just musing while cooking the turkey....</p>
<p>"small peer group (LACs typically graduate 200-300 social science/English majors, less than 20 chem/physics majors)"</p>
<p>That is actually attractive to some people. There are those that would prefer not having too many others with the same major, it makes the environment more intimate. Not that there is anything wrong with a larger environment, it is just a matter of personal preference.</p>
<p>"limited courses and professors (UC Boulder has 60 physics faculty, most LACs have around 6)"</p>
<p>Maybe, but as you mentioned earlier, larger unis like UC Boulder probably have a lot more physics majors and/or people taking courses in physics. And also, there is the question of how much the faculty at research schools really care about the undergrad learning experience - a lot of them are just interested in research, so it may not be as easy to interact with them as at a LAC. Not that there aren't those profs at large schools that just happen to care about undergrads, I just think you have a much better chance of running into them at a smaller school. As for the courses deal, I think it would still take some time to exhaust the curriculum at a LAC, and if you did so, there's plenty of extra options. For example, I know some schools offer students the chance to do independent study readings in physics in a topic of their choice.</p>
<p>"the research experience is rarely cutting edge. (Please don't bash me on this - as a scientist in academia, journal editor, and grant reviewer I can assert that, if you are interested in research, you do not look for a faculty position at a LAC.)"</p>
<p>I am not bashing you at all, because you are absolutely correct. The faculty research is not cutting edge at LAC's. But my question is, how much is that relevant for the undergraduate research experience? How often have you heard of undergrads doing stuff that is seriously cutting edge, potentially Nobel Laureate caliber? I doubt the faculty at the larger unis would really let undergrads, who do not have as much experience with the material, into the hottest topics of research. Furthermore, graduate students at larger schools usually get first priority in research, so that further undermines the undergraduate research experience.</p>
<p>I would like everyone to keep in mind that these comments are based on my own general observations and opinions - I am of course a science LAC student, so my experience with larger schools is obviously limited.</p>
<p>Remember that at a number of large, research-oriented institutions undergraduate teaching is often done by graduate assistants/teaching assistants, many of whom speak English as a second (or third) language.</p>
<p>"Remember that at a number of large, research-oriented institutions undergraduate teaching is often done by graduate assistants/teaching assistants, many of whom speak English as a second (or third) language."</p>
<p>I frankly do not know of any large, research oriented institutions where the material for a class is taught by TAs/RAs. In many top institutions even Nobel prize winners have to teach undergraduate classes. They can't just do research. TAs/RAs may be involved in small group weekly review sessions of the material taught by the professor and can be very helpful in providing an additional perspective. </p>
<p>In regards to frontline research by undergrads, it is often only an issue of seeking out the opportunities at many of the research universities. While I went to MIT as a grad student, all the projects were accessible to undergrads. You actually CAN work in the lab of a Nobel winner on some advanced research as an undergrad and even get your name in a leading publication. As far as competing for spots with grad students, that is generally not an issue as in most cases the PhD candidates (grad students) are working on longer term projects. The grad students can actually help teach you the basics around the lab to get you a jumpstart. If you are really ambitious, you can even propose your own research project and get funding for it. </p>
<p>In the end, nothing beats doing research in a major institution as an undergrad or grad student as far as sheer excitement and challenge.</p>
<p>It depends on what you mean by the word, "teach". It's almost a well-worn cliche that research unis and LACs invert the word to fit their own strengths. At an LAC, it is the professors that, for the most part, are expected to lead small group discussions of the material, not TAs. What passes for teaching at a research uni, would at an LAC be called, giving a lecture. Any visiting Nobel laureate can fly in, give a lecture, and fly out of town again. That doesn't mean he knows you from a hole in the wall or would recognize you walking down the street.</p>
<p>I can't speak for every large research university but at places like MIT the lecture format is only used for introductory courses and even then the emphasis is application not memorization of the material. As soon as you start getting into more advanced science courses there may only be 10-15 students in a class, and pretty much all the material is taught from actual research conducted at the facility. The faculty-student ratio is also not a factor as it may be as low as 3 to 1 in some departments. There are often no textbooks. It is not unusual for the professors to present original research just hot out of the lab, and which may not even have been published yet. This firsthand access to frontline research is what makes the subject come alive. The frontier is constantly moving and you are on some high speed train just trying to keep pace with the latest developments in the field. </p>
<p>I recognize that not every research university has the same resources as MIT but again the point was comparing doing research at leading universities versus top LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I frankly do not know of any large, research oriented institutions where the material for a class is taught by TAs/RAs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, I will give you one - Harvard, especially in many of the intro courses. For example, many of the intro foreign language courses at Harvard are completely taught by TA's. Harvard freshman calculus is also often times taught by TA's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it would seem there are significant downsides - e.g., small peer group (LACs typically graduate 200-300 social science/English majors, less than 20 chem/physics majors), limited courses and professors (UC Boulder has 60 physics faculty, most LACs have around 6), and, the above post not-withstanding, the research experience is rarely cutting edge. (Please don't bash me on this - as a scientist in academia, journal editor, and grant reviewer I can assert that, if you are interested in research, you do not look for a faculty position at a LAC.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, there are significant downsides to being at many large research universities too. Let's take Berkeley as an example. You say that LAC's offer limited courses. Well, at Berkeley, many students cannot get into the courses that they want. Who cares if your school has lots of courses if you can't actually get into the ones you want? Your school then becomes, in effect, a school of limited courses. Same is true of profs. There are profs at Berkeley who haven't taught an undergrad course in years, sometimes decades. To give you an example, take Yuan Lee, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1986. He is emeritus now, but back when he was still a full prof, he stopped teaching undergrads basically ever since he won the Nobel. Berkeley let him get away with it. Plenty of other Berkeley profs have not taught undergrad courses in years. Nor do I mean to single Berkeley out. Many other large public universities exhibit the same problems.</p>
<p>Nor do I see a small peer group as necessarily being a bad thing. I think this depends on the person. Caltech, for example, has extremely small peer groups - as Caltech has fewer undergrads than even most LAC's do. But that doesn't seem to hurt the school spirit of Caltech. Most Caltech grads seem to appreciate the experience. The same could be said for a place like Princeton, which is also not a particularly large school in terms of the number of students. Some people strongly prefer a small environment. I think it's for the same reasons that some people like living in small towns as opposed to big cities.</p>
<p>About the research thing, I wonder how much it matters. After all, plenty of students, even math/science students, have no intention of becoming researchers anyway. For example, I know people who just wanted to study math/science so that they could teach it in high school. You don't need to do cutting edge research to be a high school teacher. Plenty of other people just want to pursue it as an intellectual interest before heading off to, say, law or medical school, or going off to investment banking or consulting jobs. If you don't actually intend to pursue math/science as a living, then who cares how much cutting-edge research you are exposed to?</p>
<p>And then there is the high success rate of LAC's in getting students into the top PhD programs of math/science, measured as a percentage of grads getting into such programs. I think that demonstrates emphatically that whatever the LAC's may be lacking in cutting-edge research evidently doesn't hurt the students in terms of getting into top doctoral programs. For example, Caltech publishes its PhD commencement data, showing where its new PhD students got their undergrad degrees. In many years, the combination of Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Wellesley have more alumni getting PhD's at Caltech than UCLA has, despite the fact that UCLA clearly has many times undergrads than the combination of those 4 LAC's, and despite the fact that UCLA is local to Caltech and thus would be expected to send plenty of their undergrads to Caltech. I am sure that there are plenty of UCLA grads who wanted to go to Caltech to get their PhD, but were not admitted because Caltech decided to admit somebody from a LAC instead.</p>