any LACs strong in math & science?

tiyusufaly · November 27, 2006, 9:03pm

"Caltech people often rip that "Mudd should not even be in the same sentence as Caltech." "

Keep in mind rocketDA that the people who do this are in the minority. At any school you will run into people who think that most other schools are not worthy of any comparison to their own. It's partially a thing of school pride, gone very wrong. But you should try to ignore that and focus on the majority of Techers who likely do not have bad things to say about HMC at all (for example, cghen, or one of my own good friends at Caltech, or your own friends).

cellardweller · November 27, 2006, 10:56pm

" I would only argue further that this means people should avoid blaming graduate schools a priori for making undergrad research inaccessible. For example, maybe research is hard to come by at large state research universities not because of perceived competition with graduate students but rather because of a lack of capable, committed undergrads (or more likely, an overabundance of students of the opposite variety)."

I certainly got that feeling from visiting UCLA. Lots of undergraduate research opportunities, but few takers. It appeared that half the students we saw claimed to be pre-med while at the same time showing no interest in learning anything beyond the minimum science requirements for med school. You can bring a horse to water...

cghen · November 27, 2006, 11:26pm

Nobel laureates do cutting edge research. This research aides undergraduates in two ways:

1) A few undergrads can directly work with the laureate on research.

2) Having Nobel quality faculty in a department attracts other high-caliber faculty to the school, which either teach classes or provide other research opportunities for students.

But in reality, people talk about Nobel prize winners at schools because they are an indication of the overall quality of the faculty. It's obviously not some silly metric to be taken literally (e.g. no one claims a school with four Nobel Prize winners is better than one with two), but it's an easy, simple gauge for an important aspect in undergraduate education.

cellardweller · November 28, 2006, 12:49am

[inappropriate personal comments edited out - Please see Courtesy guidelines of TOS. - Mod JEM]

Do you really believe that students that choose to go to HYPSM are just prestige whores with no clue as to what is best for them? Is it really possible that an entire world can be fooled into believing that these institutions offer the very best education available at any price? Are asians and europeans deluded by smart US salesmanship when they preferentially enroll there over any other colleges? Oh, wait, it seems that US students also overwhelmingly select the same universities when given the chance.

Is there any evidence that institutions without a graduate school do a better job at teaching science than the very best research universities? With some perspective, it is clear that the LAC model is a US specific anachronism which may have much to do with a deficient secondary school system.

Oh, but the LACs provide this broad based general liberal arts education! Where else but in the US do you spend time in college catching up on the classics or introductory calculus? Isn't that what high school is for? You want to learn about the Mayan culture before colonization: go to the Met! For a lot less than $40K a year!

Oh, at LACs teachers tell bedtime stories to their students and tuck their covers at night! Sounds like some Jesuit boarding school to me! If the professor only knows what is printed in the textbook what help is he really to me unless I am learning disabled! I will take anyday some kickass lunatic with a thick german accent who writes his own material because he believes there is no current textbook.

Wait, wait, at LACs there are no mean grad students sucking up to the professors getting all the plum assignments and leaving the undergrads to take out the garbage! That reminds me of the argument for women's colleges. No men to monopolize class discussion. [inappropriate comments edited out - Courtesy please - Mod JEM]

Daigh · November 28, 2006, 2:01am

[quote]
Is there any evidence that institutions without a graduate school do a better job at teaching science than the very best research universities? With some perspective, it is clear that the LAC model is a US specific anachronism which may have much to do with a deficient secondary school system.

[/quote]

Most would say no. On the other hand, nobody is saying they do a worse job. Take the 2006/2005 Goldwater Scholars as an example.

Dartmouth: 4/2
Duke: 4/3
Stanford: 4/4
Chicago: 3/4
MIT: 3/3
Brown: 2/2
Harvard: 2/4

Oberlin: 3/4
Pomona: 3/4
Williams: 3/1
Amherst: 2/2
Grinnell: 2/0
Reed: 2/2
Wellesley: 2/2
Wooster: 2/1

Take Caltech's 2006 PhD class as another example. UC Berkeley had 4 graduates. Swarthmore had 2, and it's 1/20 Berkeley's size.

JHU's 2004-2005 med school class had 6 Haverford grads, 3 Bryn Mawr grads, and 3 Amherst grads, which compare favorably to the 5 Northwestern grads, 7 Dartmouth grads, 11 WUStL grads, and 13 Columbia grads.

sakky · November 28, 2006, 7:32am

[quote]
I do agree that revealed preferences are not an indication of intrinsic quality and brand name recognition certainly plays a role. On the other hand, a solid brand name is often successful because it does connote quality. Brand names that no longer signify quality rapidly fade. Take Cadillac, which hardly has a positive image in the market except possibly in the 75+ age group.

[/quote]

Brand name connotes quality, but it connotes more than that. Specifically, brand name also connotes deliberate marketing. For example, Harvard has often times been criticized in the past for incessant self-promotion and self-marketing which has made Harvard's brand name so good.

To extend your analogy of Cadillac, Cadillac has made a strong comeback lately with young people, and especially with the hip-hop crowd. How? The prominence of the Cadillac Escalade in hiphop culture, being featured in many music videos and driven around by numerous celebrities and TV shows. Tony Soprano drove an Escalade (and I think he still does - although I haven't seen much of the Sopranos). Bernie Mac drove an Escalade in the Bernie Mac Show. This is not a matter of luck or even just of quality, but also a matter of deliberate marketing promotion strategy by General Motors to push the Escalade to the young.

To use another example of cars, German luxury cars are, frankly, not that well built. Mercedes, in particular, has gotten conspicuously low quality and reliability ratings in the last few years. Japanese luxury cars like the Lexus and the Acura are far more reliable. Yet the public still * thinks * that German cars equate to good engineering and reliability. I believe that's a matter of good marketing. For example, BMW says that they are the Ultimate Driving Machine, and have an entire marketing campaign devoted to pushing that image. That's * great * marketing. Porsche, Audi, Mercedes - all of them have great marketing images.

sakky · November 28, 2006, 7:43am

[quote]
Which brings up the following - I sometimes wonder if LAC students are "over-represented" in grad school at least in part because they have NOT been exposed to the "dark side" of graduate education - i.e., the tedium, the competition for funding, the pressure to publish, and the frustration (most experiments don't actually work). Whereas students who have been immersed in the process as undergrads conclude they do not need to work so hard in order to be paid so little.

[/quote]

Yeah, but I wasn't looking just at how many students * got in * to various graduate programs. Neither were the statistics that were published previously (in which Caltech was #1, Mudd was #2 in terms of percentage of undergrads who later on get PhD's). I, and those statistics, were talking about those LAC students who manage to * complete * their PhD's. Which therefore means that they have successfully put up with whatever 'dark side of grad education' exists and gotten through the process.

[quote]
What many (including myself) do argue, however, is that in many fields, high-quality undergraduate research is incredibly important to the 'quality' of undergraduate education and thus, all else being equal, a school with a graduate program has the potential to better prepare students.

Now sakky (and company?) love to proclaim that not having a graduate program is not a hinderance because Caltech accepts as many Mudd graduates as from all of UCLA, but that comparison does not directly test the affect of a graduate program alone on a science education (i.e. there are also vast differences in size, average quality of student body, etc.).

[/quote]

I agree, but that's my whole point - that there are * numerous * factors involved. You can't draw a simple dichotomy between research universities and LAC's, and is aligned with what monydad has been saying. Some research universities and LAC's are great at providing opportunities for undergrads. Others are terrible. You have to look at schools on a case-by-case basis.

sakky · November 28, 2006, 8:32am

[quote]
At 3,500 posts on cc, you certainly have grown to legendary status. Is it as in judo where you a different color belt every 1,000 posts? What is it you do exactly, except spending your life on these boards, that gives such authority in commenting on the value of education at places such as Harvard?

[/quote]

Now come on, cellardwellard. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Xiggi says, but I do agree with some of it. The truth is, Harvard undergrads do often times complain about the quality of the teaching and that they feel neglected relative to the graduate students. Harvard is far from a perfect undergrad school. I am aware of similar complaints being made about the undergrad experience at Stanford and MIT.

Princeton (and to some extent Yale) is different because Princeton runs itself similarly to a LAC. In fact, Princeton is basically a LAC itself that just happens to also have graduate programs. But at the end of the day, it's really a LAC. In fact, that's Princeton's main competitive advantage vis-a-vis its peers (i.e. Harvard). Princeton touts its purported ability to provide a far more cohesive undergraduate experience than its peers can. For example, Princeton's marketing will insinuate that if you get into Harvard and Princeton for undergrad, you should turn down Harvard because Princeton will take better care of you as an undergrad. Obviously Harvard still wins the majority of the cross-admit battles with Princeton (as it does with everybody else), mostly because of the sheer power of the Harvard brand name, but when Princeton does win a particular cross-admit battle, it is usually because that student is attracted to the idea of having a better undergrad experience.

So the point is, there is something to be said for the idea of having a strong and cohesive undergraduate experience. It does have value. Otherwise, Harvard really would win 100% of the cross-admits with Princeton.

[quote]
Do you really believe that students that choose to go to HYPSM are just prestige whores with no clue as to what is best for them? Is it really possible that an entire world can be fooled into believing that these institutions offer the very best education available at any price? Are asians and europeans deluded by smart US salesmanship when they preferentially enroll there over any other colleges? Oh, wait, it seems that US students also overwhelmingly select the same universities when given the chance.

[/quote]

Again, I think it has a lot to do with the marketing, as well as certain aspects of higher education to 'manufacture' quality. To use the parlance of economists', there are network effects involved in the education market. Good marketing will tend to draw good students, which tends to draw top recruiters, which tends to draw even more good students, which draws even more top recruiters, etc. Hence, the network effects means that the market builds upon itself. For example, when Ebay just started out, it was little more than a website devoted to helping Beanie Baby hobbyists trade with each other. But Ebay began to draw more sellers, which tended to draw more buyers, which tended to draw even more sellers, which drew more buyers, etc. So now Ebay is the dominant auction site in the world because they rode the network effects all the way to the top.

So I wouldn't say that people are being 'fooled' by salesmanship in wanting to go to HYPSM. Rather, I would say that the salesmanship creates its own reality. In the case of education, another large network effect comes from the 'networking' aspect. Many people have said that success is not really about what you know, but about WHO you know. That gives you an incentive to choose schools like HYPSM for no other reason than because you know that a lot of other top people go to HYPSM, and so you want to build your own personal network of top contacts for later use in your career. Couple that with the fact that you learn more when surrounded by smart students, and I think these are all convincing reasons for why good salesmanship creates its own reality.

But all of that doesn't take away from the fact that providing a strong undergraduate experience is valuable. Of the 5 schools mentioned (HYPSM), Princeton is, like I said, the most LAC-ish because it provides probably the best undergrad experience of all of them. In fact, to me, I think Princeton should be reclassified as a LAC, or at least as a LAC/university hybrid.

But the point is, it's not fair to compare HYPSM to the LAC's. Come on, this is HYPSM we are talking about. I think a more fair comparison would be, say, Berkeley to Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore. Berkeley is clearly a prototypical research university with extremely prominent PhD programs. But for undergrad, which offers the better education? I would argue that Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore probably offer the better undergrad experience. Not for all students, of course. Some students (i.e those students who are preternaturally mature and outgoing) may be better off at Berkeley. But I would argue that the majority of undergrads are probably better off at AWS. Nor do I mean to single out Berkeley. I think the same analysis holds for other large research universities such as UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Illinois, and so forth.

Now obviously some of you would argue that the comparison between Berkeley and AWS is not entirely fair - that there are numerous factors involved that make one school better than another. True - but that's my whole point. There are many factors involved. That's why I think we should refrain from making sweeping generalizations that an entire class of schools is necessarily better than another entire class of schools for all students in all cases. This judgment should be made on a case-by-case basis.

[quote]
Oh, but the LACs provide this broad based general liberal arts education! Where else but in the US do you spend time in college catching up on the classics or introductory calculus? Isn't that what high school is for? You want to learn about the Mayan culture before colonization: go to the Met! For a lot less than $40K a year!

Oh, at LACs teachers tell bedtime stories to their students and tuck their covers at night! Sounds like some Jesuit boarding school to me! If the professor only knows what is printed in the textbook what help is he really to me unless I am learning disabled! I will take anyday some kickass lunatic with a thick german accent who writes his own material because he believes there is no current textbook.

Wait, wait, at LACs there are no mean grad students sucking up to the professors getting all the plum assignments and leaving the undergrads to take out the garbage! That reminds me of the argument for women's colleges. No men to monopolize class discussion. Please grow up! Soon you will be in the real world (or grad school). No more freebies.

[/quote]

Now, come on cellardwellard, now you are just being unfair. The fact is, plenty of research universities ALSO provide a lot of that handholding that you seem to decry. Again, I would point to the example of Princeton. Princeton provides a LOT of care to its own undergrads. So do other Ivies like Brown and Dartmouth. In fact, it is the differentiating attribute of schools like this that they do provide a lot of care to their undergrads. I think that's a nice thing.

Let me put it to you this way. I have often times wished that Berkeley would have provided more care to its undergrads. Berkeley's attitude seems to be that they are just going to leave you to fend for yourselves. If you succeed, great. If you don't, oh well, that's too bad for you. Nor do I think Berkeley is unusual in this respect. I believe the other UC's, as well as schools like Michigan, Illinois, and the like, they all do the same thing.

monydad · November 28, 2006, 8:45am

"Is there any evidence that institutions without a graduate school do a better job at teaching science than the very best research universities?"

Well, there is the % students that go on to get science PhDs, FWIW. If they did a materially worse job teaching science presumably the grad schools would stop accepting their graduates. So I guess one would say there might be no clearly superior path, so the student should go where he/she thinks would provide them with the best overall experience, personally.

"With some perspective, it is clear that the LAC model is a US specific anachronism which may have much to do with a deficient secondary school system. "

I don't know the history of the development of LACs,so I can't comment about origin. However, whatever the origin, they are not catering to deficiently trained students in the current age. The capability level of LAC students pretty much overlaps the capability of students entering research universitites, with possibly (arguably)only a few exceptions at the very highest end.

I see it more as a US phenomenon in that it extends capitalism into higher education. Some entrepreneur could have thought, "These other schools have all these grad students that suck up all the professors' time, so the undergrads might as well be sitting home reading their books themselves. I'll invent a new type of school where the profs are actually there to teach the undergrads, not the grad students". US invention indeed; capitalism at work. I don't know if it really developed that way either, but that's more like what it is now.

One can make similar arguments about US private high schools. Why do these exist, when someone can go to a public high school and get the same information for free, just in bigger classes? Weak stepchild, developed for kids who couldn't make it in the public schools? Nevertheless, some people prefer private high schools. Most people don't think they are worse. They think there is some benefit to smaller classes, more focused towards the specific needs of their students. YMMV.

"Oh, but the LACs provide this broad based general liberal arts education! "

It's really no different than the education provided in the Colleges of Arts & Science at the US research universities. Your indictment is of US education period, whether it be research Universities or LACs. The majority of both types of schools have similar curricula and distribution requirements.

"Where else but in the US do you spend time in college catching up on the classics or introductory calculus? Isn't that what high school is for? "

US high schools end at 12th grade, not 13th grade. Maybe sending a kid to school overseas is a good idea, I don't know. But an awful lot of people overseas seem to want to send their kids to college in the US, so I wonder what's up with them.

In this country one's general education does not need to stop at high school, and many people don't think that's a bad thing. There are choices for those who think otherwise; tech schools for example.

"You want to learn about the Mayan culture before colonization: go to the Met! For a lot less than $40K a year!"

So you just don't approve of studying social sciences. Don't they teach social sciences in Europe too?

"Oh, at LACs teachers tell bedtime stories to their students and tuck their covers at night!

Mostly they just have smaller classes, on average, and don't have grad students.

"Wait, wait, at LACs there are no mean grad students sucking up to the professors getting all the plum assignments and leaving the undergrads to take out the garbage! "

Now you're getting it.

"That reminds me of the argument for women's colleges. No men to monopolize class discussion. Please grow up! Soon you will be in the real world (or grad school). No more freebies."

As I see it, here in the US, educational capitalism has evolved such that one can choose from alternative environments the one that they think will do them the most good. Many capable students choose the LAC environment, and others choose research universities. There is no compelling data to prove that one path is uniformly superior to the other, for all highly capable students. But lots of people, given a choice, will pick a system that's more closely set up to meet their specific needs, rather than someone else's, or everybody's in general. When they don't have such a choice they won't choose it.

cellardweller · November 28, 2006, 12:31pm

Sakky:

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand claim that LACs provide a higher quality learning environment than research universities and then not accept a top LAC to RU comparison. LACs are LACs. RUs are RUs. By any definition, Princeton is a university (small) just as much as Smith is a LAC (large). The fact that they share many common features such as small class sizes is precisely the point. It does allow for comparison. Comparing the top LACs with state universities is simply not realistic.

The only fair way to compare LACs and RUs is to control for variables such as the selectivity of institutions, cost of attendance, student/faculty ratio among others. You could go straight down the line and take top 10 private Us vs top 10 LACs. It does make sense as it is pretty much the same applicants that apply to Harvard and Amherst or Yale and Williams, MIT and Harvey Mudd etc..

If you take HYPSMC on one side and AWSP(Mid)(HMC) on the other, I think it is pretty clear the left side is going to win on virtually every issue.

It is not surprising that you have a cross-admit ratio of greater than 10 to 1 for the universities for virtually every speciality. It clearly is not advertising that explains such preferences. If anything HYPSMC hardly advertise at all, and they have the least restrictive early admission policies. Harvard, Yale, MIT and next year Princeton don't really care if you are admitted to any LACs as they will generally win the admit battle. LACs on the other hand are critically dependent on highly restrictive ED policies as a means to compete against the top Us.

Average PhD productivity, often touted as a LAC advantage is clearly in favor of the U group, so is MBA, Law and medical school productivity.

I think the comparison would be slightly more equal if you took the next group of Us and faced them with the top LACs.

Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, UChic, Duke

Most of these have restrictive ED policies such as the LACs (ex. UCh.).

For science I would still give a big advantage to the left side, for liberal arts maybe less so. I don't know the cross-admit rate between Brown and Amherst, two schools without a core curriculum, but I would guess it is heavily in favor of Brown.

What does this show? When given the choice, students in their vast majority will choose a smaller research university over a LAC.

I can clearly see why many students will prefer a LAC to a large state U. as an undergrad. Not many people enjoy large lecture halls. Still, if you take California for instance, a very large segment of top achieving students will choose UCB or UCLA over a Pomona, Scripps or Harvey Mudd. This is very much true among Asian Americans who may not value the benefit of a supportive learning environment available at a LAC over the departmental strength and resources available at the best UCs. Somebody who performed well in a large competitive public high school will probably do well at a UC. Those are also the students that will fully take advantage of the research opportunities these universities offer.

sakky · November 28, 2006, 1:29pm

[quote]
You can't have it both ways. On the one hand claim that LACs provide a higher quality learning environment than research universities and then not accept a top LAC to RU comparison. LACs are LACs. RUs are RUs. By any definition, Princeton is a university (small) just as much as Smith is a LAC (large). The fact that they share many common features such as small class sizes is precisely the point. It does allow for comparison. Comparing the top LACs with state universities is simply not realistic.

[/quote]

Cellardwellard, I am not trying to have it both ways. If anything, you are. You seem to claim that all LAC's are worse than all RU's. That is what I dispute.

[quote]
By any definition, Princeton is a university (small) just as much as Smith is a LAC (large). The fact that they share many common features such as small class sizes is precisely the point. It does allow for comparison. Comparing the top LACs with state universities is simply not realistic.

[/quote]

Why not? Last time I checked, the state universities were RU's.

Besides, look at it this way. Look at the comparison between Princeton vs. Harvard. Princeton, like I said, is at least a LAC-hybrid, if not a full LAC in itself. Yet sometimes people prefer Princeton to Harvard. Why is that?

Or how about a comparison between the top LAC's and, say, Chicago or Johns Hopkins? Chicago and JHU are relatively small, selective, private RU'sthat has many prominent graduate programs. Yet according to the Hoxby revealed preference study, AWS, Wellesley, Pomona, and even Wesleyan are preferred to Chicago and JHU. What's up with that?

<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105%5B/url%5D">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105</a>

What that illustrates is that simply having a bunch of top graduate programs is not, by itself, THAT valuable to the typical undergrad. Many other factors are involved. That's the point that me and monydad are making.

[quote]
If you take HYPSMC on one side and AWSP(Mid)(HMC) on the other, I think it is pretty clear the left side is going to win on virtually every issue.

[/quote]

I don't dispute this, but I do dispute how you then generalize it to say that this is a general truism of ALL RU's vs. ALL LAC's, or even if you attempt to constrain it by controlling for various factors. Like I said, Chicago and Johns Hopkins are highly selective, small research universities that seems to lose out to a number of LAC's.

[quote]
If anything HYPSMC hardly advertise at all, and they have the least restrictive early admission policies.

[/quote]

The advertising that they do is not in a traditional sense. Rather, it's the way that high-level luxury goods are advertised - with a sense of mystique and exclusivity. I have never seen a Ferrari or Lamoborghini ad on TV, but I am well aware of their air of exclusivity. In fact, having them advertise on TV might actually serve to REDUCE their air of exclusivity. How do they advertise? By using subtle product placement. By appearing at events for high-wealth people.

In the case of the top universities, their 'advertising' is even more subtle. For example, Harvard Business School advertises its executive education programs in the backs of trade magazines like Institutional Investor. It basically deputizes all of its graduates to be mini-marketing agents for it. Studies on the journalism industry, and especially in the top papers such as the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, have shown that whenever a person in the news happened to have graduated from Harvard, that fact always seems to be subtly mentioned, even if it frankly has nothing to do with the story. THAT is brilliant advertising.

[quote]
I think the comparison would be slightly more equal if you took the next group of Us and faced them with the top LACs.

Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, UChic, Duke

Most of these have restrictive ED policies such as the LACs (ex. UCh.).

For science I would still give a big advantage to the left side, for liberal arts maybe less so. I don't know the cross-admit rate between Brown and Amherst, two schools without a core curriculum, but I would guess it is heavily in favor of Brown.

What does this show? When given the choice, students in their vast majority will choose a smaller research university over a LAC.

I can clearly see why many students will prefer a LAC to a large state U. as an undergrad. Not many people enjoy large lecture halls. Still, if you take California for instance, a very large segment of top achieving students will choose UCB or UCLA over a Pomona, Scripps or Harvey Mudd. This is very much true among Asian Americans who may not value the benefit of a supportive learning environment available at a LAC over the departmental strength and resources available at the best UCs. Somebody who performed well in a large competitive public high school will probably do well at a UC. Those are also the students that will fully take advantage of the research opportunities these universities offer.

[/quote]

You left yourself quite exposed there. You should have done your homework, as that is EXACTLY what the Hoxby RP study examined.

Let's look at the results:

7- Brown
8- Columbia
9-Amherst
10- Dartmouth
11- Wellesley
12 - UPenn
14- Swarthmore
15- Cornell
16- Georgetown
17- Rice
18- Williams
19- Duke
20 - Virginia
22 - Wesleyan
23 - Duke
24 - Pomona
26- Middlebury
27 - Berkeley
28 - Chicago
29 - JHU
...
38 - UCLA

Hence, I don't see any trend of any "vast majority" choosing this group of research universities over the top LAC's. If anything, it looks like a statistical tie. Hence your conclusion falls apart because your premise is flawed.

<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105%5B/url%5D">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105</a>

And if anything, the revealed preferences ranking is actually BIASED towards the large state schools. The RP ranking merely models preferences, without examining WHY certain schools are preferred. In the case of the state schools, many people may prefer them to private schools (RU or LAC) for one simple reason - cheaper instate tuition. 90% of Berkeley and UCLA undergrads are California residents and are thus getting cheaper instate tuition. Yet despite that, Pomona is still more preferred to both of them. If Berkeley and UCLA cost the same as Pomona did, it's quite clear that Pomona would be even more preferred.

Now, I know what you are going to say - that you don't believe in the RP ranking. But this has something that has been addressed in numerous other posts here. Suffice it to say that the RP ranking uses mainstream statistical modeling techniques. And revealed preferences as a technique is a widely accepted technique within modern social science. So unless you can point to an actual methodological flaw in the study (of which I and many others have yet to find), then the only real indictment you can make against the study is that you either don't believe in revealed preferences as a concept, or you don't beleive in statistical modeling. But if that's the case, then that would call a wide range of modern social science research into serious question, because much of it uses similar reseach methodologies.

cellardweller · November 28, 2006, 2:29pm

Monydad:

I don't want to imply that LACs may not serve a valuable purpose. My wife went to Smith, I met her while she was still college, and I have a very good understanding of the quality of education students receive there. I may feel the concept of women's only colleges anachronistic in the 21st century, but as you say LACs cater to various niches, and if there is enough demand these institutions will survive.

While I accept the principle of a market driven educational system I question some of the results of the current system.

-A largely scientifically illiterate college population as the competition in all fields of knowledge from other countries is increasing.
-A college graduate population with a basic education mismatched with the demands of the marketplace.
-A college system obligated to remedy a subpar high school education before any real higher education can occur.

I take your point that high school education is shorter here than in the rest of the world, but it appears to me the gap of knowledge between US high schoolers and their international counterparts is increasing not decreasing. Numbers of years of training in calculus, physics, chemistry,biology, foreign languages is at least double in most European countries, maybe more in Asia. Most kids overseas also get at least a year of philosophy and multiple years of classic litterature.

I don't believe that other countries, particularly in Europe look with particular admiration at the US undergraduate system with very exceptions such as MIT and Harvard for an Oxbridge student on an exchange program. The demand is nearly exclusively at the graduate level again because the resources at that level are unmatched anywhere else. Even China and India believe they have institutions of equal caliber at the undergraduate level. Coming from Europe you would essentially lose at least one year unless you received advanced standing and then again, the bachelors degree would not translate into anything equivalent in Europe. You could not apply to engineering, law or medical school upon return.

Now you look at the core curriculum of an institution such as Columbia College and realize that the students will spend two years studying subjects which they really should have covered in high school. My comment in the previous post on the study of ancient civilizations in college was to make a similar point. In the rest of the world, college is a time to study a subject in depth and prepare for a career even if in outline form. This corresponds more to the last two years of college in the US when students pick a major. There is no such thing as "general education requirements" as these are supposed to have been covered in high school.

Knowledge of mathematics in the US is really at an all time low. In college AP Calculus BC is supposed to be the highest standard and most kids will avoid it if they can. Most colleges sheepishly insert some "Quantitative Reasoning" when they have some minimum GEDs which could be anything from a psychology class to a macroeconomics class, neither of which involve much math. Granted these critics are just as valid for LACs as for other colleges.

Where I do part with some of the cheerleaders for LACs, is when I hear claims that may provide a superior education in the sciences when compared to their university peers with equivalent selectivity. I certainly don't deny that a few LACs have reasonably strong PhD productivity, but again no higher than the best RUs and for the majority of them, more in the middle of the pack than oustanding. One could also argue that by essence the highly selective LACs have very bright students, which not surprisingly will do well in their future careers. What the LAC itself added to that potential is the real issue. A better test may to compare the productivity of an Amherst versus a Caltech undergrad as a PhD in terms of publications or other similar metric. With over a third of the class going for a PhD at Caltech as opposed to less than one in eight at Amherst, students at Caltech are immersed in a culture that promotes research from the very beginning. Students at Amherst can only dream of such access and will have wait another four years to experience it firsthand.

Clearly not all scientific specialties require huge investments in equipment, staff and faculty but many do. The life sciences, chemistry, physics and obviously all forms of engineering are resource intensive. There are certain economies of scale which make many forms of research impossible without a critical mass of students and multi-million dollar investments. It is certainly impressive that a school like Smith College has created a department of engineering, but is it not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? If my daughter was interested in engineering would I try to steer her to such an environment, which despite all good efforts will remain vastly underfunded, when institutions like MIT and other engineering schools are bending over backwards to attract women into engineering? (I recognize that the selectivity level is not the same.)

Claiming that LAC students can catch up with research in graduate school is in fact admitting that the optimal education was not provided in college in the first place. With most breakthroughs in science achieved by people less than 30 years old, a 4 year head start could be truly decisive. An important metric that would be relevant would be the number of Nobel (or Fields) winners by undergraduate institution. I would venture to guess that even adjusted for size, institutions such as HYPSMC would come out way ahead.

johnwesley · November 28, 2006, 2:30pm

Sakky:

7- Brown
8- Columbia
9-Amherst
10- Dartmouth
11- Wellesley
12 - UPenn
14- Swarthmore
15- Cornell
16- Georgetown
17- Rice
18- Williams
19- Duke
20 - Virginia
22 - Wesleyan
23 - Duke
24 - Pomona
26- Middlebury
27 - Berkeley
28 - Chicago
29 - JHU
...
38 - UCLA<

Thanks, Sakky. I think this pretty much answers the OP's question which was never "which is the better educational institution -- the research u or the LAC?" but, rather, "which are the strong LACs in math and science?" The answer is, "the usual suspects", the NESCAC colleges, plus Swarthmore and Pomona.

johnwesley · November 28, 2006, 2:41pm

cellardweller:
Stop before you wind up like the proverbial thmph bird who flew in progressively smaller concentric circles until he flew into his own backside, thus making the sound, "thmph", shortly before disappearing.

You've been backed into a rhetorical corner. Citing Columbia (you do realize that it's a research u.?) as the prime example of what is wrong with the American higher educational system is the final "thmph" of your argument.

Rabban · November 28, 2006, 2:45pm

[quote]
So unless you can point to an actual methodological flaw in the study (of which I and many others have yet to find), then the only real indictment you can make against the study is that you either don't believe in revealed preferences as a concept, or you don't beleive in statistical modeling. But if that's the case, then that would call a wide range of modern social science research into serious question, because much of it uses similar reseach methodologies.

[/quote]

Forgive me Sakky, I must laugh at your comments here. Do you really think that elementary statistical model used by cough social scientists cough is the best thing since sliced bread? Oh, no it must be prestigious because bunch of professors co-authored and must be treated as the holy Spear (as opposed to the holy gral) - Where is Kundry ?.

After reading the paper, my response is as follows:

1) BYU wins cross-admit battle over NW and UChicago and JHU ? Too many Mormons are included among 3240 hi-achieving students sampled, I suppose? major flaw :skewed data garbage in garbage out
2) Notre Dame wins over Duke?? LOL, Now Ive seen everything!! again garbage in garbage out
3) Total rubbish Its shame for anyone to reference it!!!
4) the paper should go directly to shredder for recycling or bathroom magazine rack for emergency use

I hope cellardweller post more often here he makes total sense to me :)

monydad · November 28, 2006, 2:55pm

The data I've seen, posted on CC, shows the LAcs do quite well in producing PhDs, so I don't know what's being referred to here. There was also a post showing Nobels as well.

Personally I doubt the LAC kids always have that much more catching up to do, since I don't think ready access to undergrad research opportunities is so ubiquitous at research Us, to the majority of students that might want it. If everyplace was MIT and Cal Tech that would be one story, but I don't think they are. If I'm mistaken, then you have a point. As far as research careers in the sciences.

Access to research opportunities should be individually investigated by a prospective applicant, and if they are really likely to be available this would be a point in favor of that particular school. I've said this right along. Better, higher powered research would be better. The issue is whether it is really available; whether you can reasonably expect it, coming in as an undergrad to that institution. Or rather is it the case that such opportunities do exist, however there are 20 students hovering after every such opportunity. This is a critical point, and I believe it will vary considerably on a school-by-school basis.

Regarding Amherst vs. Cal Tech, only a fraction of Amherst students are interested in science careers, or PhDs for that matter. Too bad they don't have investment banking or future lawyer tables, then you can might look at this comparison differently I suspect. PhD is not the only desirable outcome for top students in this country.

johnwesley · November 28, 2006, 2:58pm

Rabban:

What other kind of model would you (cough) use? We're talking about social phenomena here, not a chemical reaction.

cellardweller · November 28, 2006, 3:17pm

Sakky:

In all fairness I never claimed that ALL RUs are better than any LAC. If that came across that was not my intention.

I fully accept the data from the RP study, recognizing as the authors state that the differences are less and less meaningful as you go down the list. (USC ahead of UCLA, I don't think so.) I was familar with it but did not pull out the data to validate my post. It does largely confirm my point. 9 out top 10 are RUs and 16/20 are RUs.

It does have some surprises for LACs as well.
-Pomona- 24
-McKenna-53
-Reed -71
-Scripps-110?
-Harvey Mudd unlisted

It seems to show a strong East vs West Coast bias for LACs. UCB is neck and neck with Pomona and miles ahead of every other LAC in the State. It does tend to confirm my impression after living 20 years in Northern California and moving East five ago. LACs are not as big a factor on the West Coast as they are on the East Coast. Historical differences or better state U. system?

This study does little to address the differences in research opportunities between LACs and RUs as it covers all matriculants not just those in science and engineering. The differences would certainly be more in favor of RUs if applicants declaring a science major were sorted out.

Rabban · November 28, 2006, 3:20pm

John, with all due respect, please download the paper and see for yourself. Their so-called mathematical models, let alone their so-called equations, are so elementary as to be laughable (for example look at their equation (1) LOL) had to go grab couple of Rolaids myself!! But then again, what do you expect from cough social scientists who write a paper about college admission? ;)

cellardweller · November 28, 2006, 3:35pm

Monydad:

The PhD productivity list I refer to is the one posted on several other boards on cc and current as of 1999, I believe. With the exception of Harvey Mudd and Reed both with abysmal preference rankings, only Swarthmore distinguishes itself among the top LACs.

I don't claim to have researched every RU in the country, only the top 15 or so and specifically in the life sciences, because that was the area of interest for my daughter. The only State school we visited was UCLA because it had a large neuroscience department and well known med school on campus. That is clearly a narrow slice consisting of the most elite universities in a well defined (but broad) field. AT THOSE facilities we found absolutely no difficulty in access to research by undergrads (paid or for credit). These were all very well funded universities with large departments.

I agree that Caltech vs Amherst would not be fair comparison. Harvard and Yale have many overlapping applicants with Amherst.

Thread		Replies	Views
Math @ LAC College Search & Selection	7	109	April 15, 2021
Math and Science College Search & Selection	8	32	April 15, 2021
Liberal Arts Colleges with strong science departments College Search & Selection	10	65	April 15, 2021
Which LAC's Are Best in the Sciences? College Search & Selection	43	296	April 15, 2021
LACs strong in STEM but not overly selective College Search & Selection	26	2505	August 5, 2021

any LACs strong in math & science?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

any LACs strong in math & science?

Related Topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US