<p>Yes, I know that nearly EVERYONE applies to BOTH LACs and Universities; however, I'm having trouble looking at Universities (and I know I should) after learning about LACs.</p>
<p>Who wouldn't want:
-smaller classes?
-professors that want to teach instead of research?
-no TA's?
-easier class registrations?
-more participation in school activities/sports teams?</p>
<p>Please help me know what the fuss is about over "top universities". Thanks.</p>
<p>personally i applied to mostly LACs and like 2 universities with a liberal arts feel.<br>
However, some of the aspects that universities have that LACs lack are:
-more opportunities (there are more majors, more opportunities for research, etc.)
-more people (some people just prefer a college with 10000+ people, it gives them an opportunity to learn more people. Also the student body is usually much more diverse)</p>
<p>its just up to what you prefer, not everyone applies to both. In fact most people I know applied to either one or the other, so if youd rather go to an LAC, go for it.</p>
<p>There are small universities. I completely understand your point and feel the same way, but I'll probably apply to some smaller unis like W&M and maybe Brown.</p>
<p>Much of the "fuss" over top unis is simply due to the fact that they have better name-recognition. People know, say, the Ivies (because they're the Ivies) and big, public schools (usually because of sports), but few people who aren't actively involved in the college process or academia will know, say, Amherst from Williams. In my opinion, this doesn't matter, but you (or your parents) might disagree.</p>
<p>Which universities (besides Brown and W&M) also have a "liberal arts feel"?</p>
<p>I liked Chicago because it seemed to have a smaller undergraduate student body and small classes. It also probably has a more non-traditional feel to it that matches up with some LAC's. </p>
<p>Here are the reasons I didn't like LAC's when I was applying to colleges:</p>
<ol>
<li> I hated, hated, hated, hated, HATED the idea of a gated campus. Most LAC's are pinched off from the world a bit just by physical plant alone.</li>
<li> My high school was bigger than a lot of LAC's and I seemed to know everybody there anyway. Did not want High School Part 2, where everybody knows everyone.</li>
<li> I visited one on a college tour and did residential programs at three others. Really didn't see the "charm."</li>
<li> Smaller course catalog with smaller departments, limited offerings, particularly if the school isn't in a consortium. (My brother would bring home his course catalog and his gf would bring home hers, and the bigger course catalog caught me).</li>
<li> Less developed student life. Academically excellent small school #1 was practically begging students to contribute to some of its clubs, and becoming club president was as easy as showing up for meetings. Less academically excellent medium-size school had a better club and program for this activity, and more of a community and structure to it.</li>
</ol>
<p>If I were to do it all over again, I'd consider LAC's much more seriously, though.</p>
<p>If you don't like universities as much, don't apply to them. There are many great lacs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which universities (besides Brown and W&M) also have a "liberal arts feel"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tufts for sure... it was a LAC until the mid-20th century and still retains that intimacy.
Others include Princeton, Dartmouth, Rice, Wake Forest, Brandeis, Pepperdine (just guessing due to size), and definitely Clark, which has basically backed away from being a research university.</p>
<p>If I'm not mistaken, Wesleyan University is a liberal arts university.
Best of both worlds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is there anything in particular about Chicago that would lead you to look at LAC options if you were looking at colleges again, or more just a general change in priorities from when you applied? Just curious, b/c I remember seeing an old post of yours while I was searching the archives saying how much you liked Binghamton during the app process and it would have probably been your second choice.</p>
<p>Good memory, you!</p>
<p>Bing was more or less my second choice at the time I applied, and it was also my safety. I had considered other schools and had others on my list (no lac's, though) but I was drawn to Bing because...</p>
<p>1) It didn't remind me of my high school AT ALL. (I went to an uppity high school and I stuck out like a sore thumb, so any college that didn't mirror high school was a big, big plus).
2) Students there seemed smart, friendly, outgoing, and some seemed sort of offbeat. The overall vibe I got was that I'd feel comfortable going to class in sweatpants or in high heels. I ate with students when I was there and that helped me confirm that impression.
3) Bing (and Geneseo) are the flagships of the New York for liberal arts, and I liked that they were academically respected but relatively toned-down about themselves.</p>
<p>That said, I did not find Bing's campus or its surrounding at all inspiring. Kids tended to go down to Taco Bell or a bar for fun. That aspect didn't bother me, though maybe if I attended I would tell a different story.</p>
<p>I think I'd look at LAC's more closely because I like the idea of being taken care of by a prof and being watched over by a community, because I think it's one of my favorite aspects of being at Chicago. I also think LAC's tend to be more academic, which is a big plus. I have that warm and fuzzy academic community and small classroom experience at Chicago, so it's not like it's a feature exclusive to LAC's, but I think it's one of those things that the setup of an LAC lends itself to better.</p>
<p>William & Mary, Rice, Tufts, Wake Forest, Claremont Consortium are good hybrids of LAC and U</p>
<p>LuckyGus: Although a long time ago, I attended and earned degrees from both a LAC & a large research university. My preference is for the large university. LACs are fine for two semesters, then can become a bit suffocating. I needed more. Your stereotypes listed in the original post are not universally true, and, from my knowledge & experience, are not even fair typicalizations. Much depends upon the individual student's needs & wants. For one ready to grow in several directions in a diverse & often--initially at least--challenging environment, National Universities are the way to go. LACs tend to be more comfortable with more hand-holding during the transitory period when one adjusts from living at home to living away from home. My college & university years were much too early for a "nesting" period. I wanted & needed challenges & growth in several areas during my late teens & early twenties. But, that was & is me, which has nothing to do with what is better for another.</p>
<p>I don't understand what people's problems with TAs is. First of all, going to a liberal arts college doesn't necessarily mean no TAs, just as going to a university doesn't necessarily mean that you will have a TA. Second of all, TAs are often upper-level graduate students who are knowledgeable about their field and may be MORE knowledgeable about a certain topic area or recent knowledge in a field than the professor. Here at Columbia we have some advanced graduate students who teach part of the Core and they are excellent teachers and scholars. Being a professor doesn't necessarily equal great teaching and being a TA doesn't necessarily equal crappy teaching, either. Beyond that, TA formats range from TAs simply grading papers to graduate students teaching entire courses.</p>
<p>Class registration is not also necessarily easier at LACs. I went to an LAC for undergrad and registration was the pits; I was in a popular major, so if you didn't register before noon on the first day of registration you could easily get shut out of the more popular and/or required courses, and end up taking them at crappy times. In addition, LACs usually have fewer course offerings than large universities. Someone who wanted to take Portuguese couldn't take it at my small LAC; but my current university has it.</p>
<p>Also, being at an LAC doesn't equal more participatipn. My small LAC had a small amount of student groups, just the basics. This large university has MANY student groups that cover like EVERYTHING. It was easier to get onto the sports teams at my small LAC, but the players were also less experienced and no one cared about the sports at my D-III school.</p>
<p>And professors do research regardless of where you are. The small LAC across the street, when talking to a professor he told me that his responsibilities were 60% research, 40% teaching. Professors are always expected to do research; that's how they earn tenure. However, their research informs their teaching -- effective teachers can also be effective researchers, and it is a pleasure to be taught by professors who are innovators in their fields. Who better to teach me statistics than a nationally-recognized scholar in statistics who helped develop one of the statistical programs?</p>
<p>Also, many large universities have small class sizes. What is important is student-to-faculty ratio.</p>
<p>In sum:
-More student activity groups
-More students!
-More course offerings with a possibly smoother registration period
-World-renowned professors
-More research labs with the ability to do research with those professors (and they are more accessible than you think)</p>
<p>If I were to do it all over again, I would've applied to several larger LACs and some smaller universities. My LAC was TOO small.</p>
<p>Darmouth, Brown, Boston College</p>
<p>O.K. This is coming from someone who turned down Yale and took a year off just to get into a LAC that he truly wanted to go to. Still to this day, people look at me crazy when I say I turned down Yale to apply to Carleton & Middlebury.
Here's the thing. LAC's are always less well-known. It's indisputable that the Ivies, big state universities(U Michigan, Berkley), and other good insitutions like Northwestern and Duke are more famous than smaller LACs like say Swarthmore. They're huge, and they probaly have more money, and they have famous people working as their professors(for graduate schools obviously) that advertise their school names. Because people know these schools and have heard of them on the street, they apply to them more. Tons of people just throw in their applicantion for the sake of it. Cornell receives like ten thousands of applications, and Wesleyan probably receives some thousands. Yet their selectivity(admission rate) is about equal. LAC's are like hidden gems. People who care know them, but not everyone does.</p>