<p>sewhappy… the only thing i would watch for at an lac for sciences would be the availability to proceed through the necessary sequence… how many classes are offered each semester, how many professors etc… so there would be no conflicts in schedulng…/ if a necessary class is filled by upperclassmen but there is only one class that can be a problem. And if she will go in with advanced credit in sciences are enough higher level classes available at the lac. Some lac are excellent for sciences so i would just look at their course offerings as well.</p>
<p>^^^ </p>
<p>Disagree with the author. First, students have the choice to take the courses he denounces as “professor pet projects” or not. Secondly, the type of overly broad courses he is calling for reminds me of the mentality of many undergrads on many anti-intellectual campuses who wanted most/entire undergrad coursework to consist of watered-down courses geared for non-majors such as the stereotypical “rocks for jocks” or “Literature for Science/Engineering majors” where workloads are ridiculously light and easy judging by their syllabi and comments from students taking them. I also wonder if he’s failing to differentiate enough between introductory freshmen courses and more advanced intermediate/advanced courses one takes later in their undergrad career…</p>
<p>One of the great things at some good LACs and universities is that they minimize/don’t allow for this in order to expose non-majors to the same intro courses majors must take and thus, get a more meaningful glimpse into a given field. </p>
<p>To some extent, this is a rehash of the debates I kept hearing/reading about whether US undergrad education is too generalist and shallow on one side and whether overseas educations on the British/European/Asian models are too specialized and narrow on the other. Seems like this author is in the latter camp…especially considering he is calling for the further generalization of US undergrad education in his arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If she hasn’t already, she may want to consider Oberlin as they are strong in the natural sciences. As for math, knew some math majors including one high school classmate who is now a math teacher at an academically reputable high school in the NYC area. </p>
<p>Only negatives I’ve heard from majors in those areas is that the math/natural science departments are geared more for those going into academia, research, and K-12 education…not pre-meds at the time I attended. A reason why those departments tend to send most of its graduates onto PhD programs and teaching jobs. However, if she wants to do science/math teaching, it will be a great fit. </p>
<p>Financially speaking, I am not sure as I attended as a scholarship/FA student many years ago.</p>
<p>skrlvr, I think since Obama has been president, Occidental isn’t considered a lessor school.</p>
<p>It also is more well known on the West coast than east, and has generous financial aid. I know students who’ve attended that loved it.</p>
<p>However, if I were looking at schools on the West Coast and had the grades, the Claremont Consortium would be a better choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beware the element of demonstrated interest. Many LACs, including some that are highly regarded, want students to show they’re genuinely interested in attending. Making a campus visit is the best way to do this (short of applying ED). If you live within a 5-6 hour drive of a school that factors demonstrated interest into the equation, failing to make a campus visit may be a negative at the admissions table.</p>
<p>Re: [America’s</a> colleges are subverting the liberal arts - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/17/opinion/la-oe-hacker-college-courses-20110817]America’s”>Take back the liberal arts)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, the authors forget that biology is a liberal art that is one of the most popular majors at many schools (although students often choose it for pre-professional (pre-medical) reasons).</p>
<p>Also, almost all schools have significant humanities and social studies breadth requirements, so that the biology, math, and engineering majors have to get some exposure to those subjects; the humanities and social studies majors can usually get away with a few “physics for poets” and “rocks for jocks” type of courses, meaning that they usually get a less well-rounded liberal arts education than the biology, math, and engineering majors.</p>
<p>[10</a> Reasons to Skip the Expensive Colleges on Shine](<a href=“http://shine.yahoo.com/event/backtoschool/10-reasons-to-skip-the-expensive-colleges-2518407]10”>http://shine.yahoo.com/event/backtoschool/10-reasons-to-skip-the-expensive-colleges-2518407) another Hacker and Dreifus </p>
<p>although i dont necessarily agree with number 2…think that might be school dependent…my son is at a high research school and knows all his professors , classes are not huge, and not taught by ta.</p>
<p>Actually, the association that accredits undergraduate business programs REQUIRES that more than 50% of courses be taken outside of business, and many of these schools have very hefty liberal arts distribution requirements. (My younger d. - an international business/accounting major) had more distributional requirements than are found at Williams or Smith.)</p>
<h1>346 - They must have a book. I disagree with all but #9 and #6. In fact, my son was taught Freshman year by a Physics Nobel Prize winner, at a research university.</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not the OP–but my H, who has a small company, just hired two new college grads. Neither went to an Ivy. One is a Colby grad and the other is from Rose Hulman (engineering school). They’ll start at $55K and will be eligible for a raise and a very big success bonus if they stay till the end of the project. Both of the new hires got their jobs through networking. My H is in the energy development business and he looks for entry-level people who are bright, can learn quickly, and handle a business that’s fraught with ups and downs. It’s not a business for the faint of heart. Someone who wants security would not do well. H is more interested in the person’s ability to do the work than in his/her schooling. While it doesn’t hurt if someone comes to him with a degree from an academically strong LAC or university, that isn’t the only thing that comes into play in his decision.</p>
<p>None of the above really answers the question put forth by the OP: is a $200K LAC education worth it? If you look at the people in H’s company–they were educated at both LACs and State Us and all do well financially (all except the two part-timers and newbies make six figures). I think if the way one measures “worth” is only through income potential, it’s hard to say that an LAC is the “best” way to get a higher paying job. So much depends on the industry and the individual that it’s hard to generalize. </p>
<p>I feel blessed that H and I were able to afford the LACs (top 20-25 ranking–not ivies) that our kids attended. If my money subsidized (and that seems to be a point of debate) someone who couldn’t afford it, I really don’t care. My kids were lucky–all had great experiences and felt that their college educations were rewarding in ways other than well-paying jobs. To me, that’s worth the $$$ I spent. But, again, I wasn’t in the position of having to choose between emptying my retirement account and paying top tuition dollars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve seen university and college course guides where they listed similar humanities and social science courses geared for STEM majors with ridiculously light assigned reading and writing requirements. Not too surprising considering the endless whining I heard from many STEM majors on many campuses about the “heavy” 100-200 pages/week reading loads in each course or having to write a “heavy” 5-10 page paper. </p>
<p>From what I’ve seen and heard, most STEM majors…especially the engineering/CS majors IME tended to take the easiest humanities/social science courses with the lightest workloads they could get away with. Even some colleagues and high school/college classmates who were engineering/CS majors expressed their criticisms of and contempt towards most of their fellow majors at their respective institutions for “cheesing out” on the humanities/social science equivalent of “rocks for jocks” courses.</p>
<p>
After meeting our minimum requirements and taking a technical placement exam, we no longer consider the school attended at all. Last round we hired state schoolers over one Caltecher. But this gets to the crux of my whole point. We simply don’t get that many Ivy League applicants for our positions, because there just aren’t that many Ivy grads period. And I believe there are even fewer grads from elite LACs. </p>
<p>They get more Ivy aps on the analyst/lawyer side of things, and they do very well. But I suspect this is because of who the applicants are than where they went to school, because I don’t believe they consider that much either. THey get some Pomona or CMK applicants and they do very well as well. Since we’re in Cal many fewer from the east coast. </p>
<p>To be honest, I was sort of uneducated - I knew nothing about many of these LACs until I started reading CC a few years ago. So I would have likely opened my eyes a bit wider at the name MIT or Harvard than that of Williams or Carleton. But I still think the employment issue should not be a major factor when deciding on spending this money or not. It may matter some, especially if you want some half-million dollar position. But otherwise, I think the idea that at every job one applies to they will be in some sort of head-to-head competition with a bunch of Harvard grads is just not true. </p>
<p>BTW - these positions I’m talking about don’t start at 100K - more like 60K. After a couple years and a PE license they make 100K. Which is a typical if not low salary for California engineers.</p>
<p>Bromfield, Rose Hulman is usually ranked #1 or #2 for LAC (non-PhD granting) engineering school. DS actually considered applying, he said Rose Hulman is referred to as RH (for “Rich Husband”) in the Midwest . . . I believe those grads do very, very well. </p>
<p>It’s quite expensive though, as I recall, and DS did not think he could get merit there and his engineering interest wasn’t that strong.</p>
<p>FWIW, I think the push to extend FA has enhanced the universities and colleges that do it tremendously. Ironically, if HYP hadn’t started doing that (increasing FA) I don’t even think our son would have applied, not because we thought he’d get FA (pretty much knew he wouldn’t) but because he would have assumed the tone of the schools would have been very uncomfortable for him.</p>
<p>Just want to make clear here that FA is, IMO, a great thing. I just wish the cutoff wasn’t so rigid. To lump all families earning over $150K with all those families above that is really, really strange. We regard FA as just another tax, but not one that is truly progressive in the manner of taxes. And that leads my inner cynic to think it is designed to cut quite a sweet deal to the truly rich . . .</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Hacker went to Amherst and Dreifus went to NYU - expensive colleges both. They recommend skipping expensive schools to other lesser people, but of course such advice or restrictions do not apply to themselves.</p>
<p>How is it cutting a sweet deal to super rich who are paying full freight?</p>
<p>I swear, the Ivies went generous and it still isn’t apparently enough. If you (general you) can’t afford an Ivy – well, that’s how it goes. It’s not like you’re being shut out of ever achieving a good job and a good life.</p>
<p>Bromfield’s point about RH actually makes the point, sewhappy. The average person hasn’t heard of RH but the people in the know do and that’s all that counts. Just like Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And probably they attended their highly expensive school long before the advent of FA.</p>
<p>PG,</p>
<p>To quote Bromfield:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I feel rather stupid for asking this, but what is an “LAC”? I can’t figure it out. :(</p>
<p>Liberal Arts College</p>
<p>When we visited Carleton recently, we were told that it is among the leaders in graduates earning phDs in the sciences, and especially high for female graduates with sciences phDs. I failed to find the exact data with a google search, but I did find similar information from Reed:</p>
<p>[REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p>In this area, and also in professional school admittance (according to the WSJ chart that has been posted elsewhere on this site), elite LACs match up well with the major research universities.</p>
<p>As for employment without additional education, I found this chart for LACs:</p>
<p>[Top</a> Liberal Arts Colleges By Salary Potential](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-liberal-arts-colleges.asp]Top”>Best Liberal Arts Colleges | Payscale)</p>
<p>With college being one of the biggest expenses a family will face, it’s only natural to have anxiety about its value. Personally, future earnings potential has not been high on my list of considerations in helping my son choose a college – partly because I believe after a certain level of comfort is obtained, additional income has diminishing returns, but mostly because predicting the future is impossible! Yes, we try to reasonably plan, but as John Lennon sang, “life is what happens when you’re busy making other plans.”</p>
<p>A few people (not CC posters, of course!) even question if college at all is “worth it”, given the changing economy and mounting student debt, among other issues. I couldn’t criticize a bright young person who decided to save tens of thousands in tuition, go to trade school to learn plumbing, invest what would have been college tuition in her own business, and enrich her mind by joining the classics reading group at the local bookstore, etc.</p>
<p>When my son started school, I had many conversations with friends and relatives about private vs. public school. H and I decided private school wasn’t worth the cost and our children would be better served if we saved the tuition money for college. In our view, the local privates did not offer demonstrably better education than the public schools, so the decision was not particularly gut-wrenching. If we lived in a different place, we may have made a different decision.</p>
<p>Despite all my previous educational frugality, I’m leaning towards an LAC as perhaps being the best choice for my son, due to his interests and personality, and I see it as a better value than an equivalent private research university FOR HIM. But the much lower cost of the state u honors college may ultimately prove more attractive. As we expect him to share the cost through work (and if he goes to a private, likely some loans), he’ll also have to determine what it’s worth.</p>