<p>You may be right, Garland!:)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Correct. There are plenty of LAC grads around. They are not over- or underrepresented anywhere that I know of. What is underrepresented, both in terms of absolute number and especially in terms of percentage, are publications in top journals where the authors did their work at an LAC. Not only in my field but also in related fields and every other lab-based scientific field for which I’ve looked at the literature. This directly contradicts the notion that there is a lot of “important” scientific research going on at LACs. It just can’t be the case or we’d see a lot more publications from them. Either that or for some goofy reason LAC profs are doing great research but choosing not publish their findings. But I can’t think of any rational reason why they would do that.</p>
<p>coureur, do you, then, believe that LAC’s are inferior to universities?</p>
<p>"coureur, do you, then, believe that LAC’s are inferior to universities? </p>
<p>STOP! Of course not. They are apples and oranges, meeting different needs.</p>
<p>yes, i’ll stop. you made my point.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, not in terms of providing undergraduate education. I’ve said that over and over again in this thread. It’s only in the area of putting out important scientific research that LACs are behind. Which is fine. Doing high-end scientific research is not normally part of the mission of an LAC. </p>
<p>I start arguing only when LAC boosters assert, as they regularly do, that LACs still manage to do all that wonderful, top-quality research. And they say this right after they say that teaching and not research is what LACs are focused on. That’s when I say wait a minute - let’s not get carried away here. Let’s look at the objective facts and see who really is doing the vast majority of the top research before we start making over-the-top claims.</p>
<p>I have heard what courier has been saying repeatedly. He’s saying it repeatedly because people don’t seem to be hearing him. I totally agree with his latest post, I totally agree with his earlier posts, and I am sending my daughter to an LAC next year.</p>
<p>We can’t have it both ways, we can’t say that the advantage of an LAC is the teaching and then say that doesn’t detract from the research opportunities. In my opinion the downside of a research university is that a professor there has both teaching and research responsibilities. The professors want to be good teachers but they are stretched thin and they get tenure based on their research results, not their teacher evaluations.</p>
<p>oh, c’mon. I’ve gone through this thread with a fine toothed comb. No LAC boosters made any such claim. Someone said, that some LACs have “fabulous labs” (which they do) then, Coureur, at post #136, said:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I snipped the rest because I don’t believe in feeding additional strawmen to the fire.</p>
<p>^ Straw man. Thanks. I had forgotten the name of that debate tactic.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You need a better comb because the fuller quote was “fabulous labs and research opportunities;”</p>
<p>Then in the very next post after my reply someone stated: “Take a look at the faculty at Reed College. Many are doing exceptional research, one who I know, is considered one of the top contributors in his field.” (#137)</p>
<p>Then again in post #150: “Looks like they got to do some solid, important research.” </p>
<p>We get tales of “fabulous labs and research opportunities”, “many are doing exceptional research”, “top contributors in his field”, and “solid important research,” all referring to a group of colleges that are publishing next to nothing in the top journals. Those are the types of quotes that leave an erroneous impression about the level of research that goes on at most LACs.</p>
<p>Research intensive universities generally produce more top level research output than LACs.</p>
<p>Many LACs have very good labs.</p>
<p>Many students get a better research experience at a LAC than they would at a research university.</p>
<p>Many students get a better classroom education (class size, bright fellow students, writing intensive focus, fully engaged professors) at a LAC than at a research university.</p>
<p>A research university is more likely to have courses with 100 or even 500 students, and for teaching to be done by teaching assistants or adjuncts, than at a LAC.</p>
<p>PhDs in science are not the leaders of society.</p>
<p>If you want to be a pastry chef, Harvard is “inferior” to the Culinary Institute of America.</p>
<p>People on this thread misuse the word “inferior”.</p>
<p>All the above assertions are true, and so is this one.</p>
<p>">> For a student who intends to major in one of the humanities, what’s the essential difference between a top LAC and the liberal arts / arts and sciences school of a top university? "</p>
<p>I thought we’d been through this:</p>
<p>Course offerings. Breadth and Depth of courses offered in your field and in related fields. Number of professors with more sub-specialties of your field represented. </p>
<p>If they don’t teach it there you can’'t learn it.</p>
<p>Numbers of sections offered in many courses, thereby reducing scheduling conflicts.
Frequency with which many courses are offered (eg not every other year, or whenever they can hire an adjunct who happens to have that specialty which is otherwise absent)</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with sciences.</p>
<p>The limitations my daughter encountered had nothing to do with sciences. or research. They had everything to do with breadth of coverage in her field, and frequency with which courses were offered.</p>
<p>Yes one can encounter limitations anyway, but where there are multiple times fewer: Professors, sections offered, courses offered- it is far more likely to happen. And it happened to her.</p>
<p>marite’s prior example, of a kid in a school with one professor who was supposed to cover all of East Asian studies, is illustrative of a situation that can happen that has nothing to do with sciences or research. there are not enough professors on staff to provide wide breadth of coverage of their subjects. That can matter, if you become interested in something they don’t adequately cover. And it did happen.</p>
<p>Though I think the OP may have misinterpreted what is meant by liberal arts, this thread took an interesting turn, nonetheless.</p>
<p>My thoughts on the matter----</p>
<p>I dont know that there is a right answer to the question of whether an LAC or a research university is the better place for a science major. Students choose to major in science for many different individual reasons. For those students who plan to pursue a Ph.D., whether an LAC can accommodate their needs or whether they are better off in a research university really depends on the particular students preferences, abilities, and resourcefulness as well the particular university. Much of it comes down to how one weights these different advantages and disadvantages. A student can prepare well for graduate school and develop as a future scientist in either environment—one size does not fit all.</p>
<p>Potential advantages of majoring in a science dept. at a research university:
Greater depth and breadth of coursework in each dept.
Greater opportunity for advanced work in a field for those who are current/future superstars (e.g, this seems to be especially important in fields like math)
Some science majors are only available at a research university (e.g., meteorology)
Greater opportunity for coursework in certain cognate fields (e.g., history of science, science education, science communication/technical writing, certain relevant engineering courses, etc.)
Greater opportunity to be taught by and to do research with professors doing cutting-edge research
Research being done on a broader range of problems—more likely to find an area for research that matches ones own research interest
Prestige, recommendations, etc. may provide advantage graduate school
Possibly earlier/greater exposure to possibility of, and opportunities for graduate study----awareness, role models
More opportunity to attend lectures, etc. given by leading visiting scientists
Possibly more access to better/more recent lab equipment
Intro courses in math and science offered at multiple levels to accommodate those with greater and those with lesser high school preparation
More potential opportunities to do research/assist with research due to greater volume of research conducted (and not just in summer) including more opportunities for paid work
Greater awareness/exposure to big science ----funding, organization structure, etc.—which is the context for much research
Greater concentration of other students at a similar level of development in a field.
Depending on the university, more sections of courses, courses offered more frequently, etc----may be easier to register for the courses one needs (on the other hand, at some research universities, access to needed courses is a problem and resulted in delayed time to complete a degree)</p>
<p>Potential disadvantages of majoring in a science dept. at a research university:
Potential for overspecialization/specializing too early.
Potentially less likelihood to pursue advanced courses in other science depts. ??? e.g., depending how rigid dept boundaries are, majors may only stick with their own depts. or be less likely to attempt advanced courses in other science depts.
More likelihood to switch out of a science major because one perceives that everyone else is more qualified (due to the greater concentration of talented students in a dept. So, a student starting out as a Physics major at a research university is potentially might be less likely to continue in that major than a student who enters that field at an LAC???)
Potentially more likely to drop out of a science major due to the competition and larger numbers of students that is more common feature of larger universities, e.g., grading everything on a curve to weed out pre-med students, for example.
Due to specialization/early specialization may be less likely to take advanced courses in humanities and social sciences that might be important for ones development as a person and future scientist. (This is quite apart from the minimal distribution requirements that I think its safe to say do not necessarily ensure that one obtains a liberal education by any stretch of the imagination, even when ones college is labeled, Liberal Arts & Sciences.)
Less likelihood to find a mentor relationship with a faculty member. Such a relationship seems to be especially important in developing scientists, whether it occurs at the undergrad level or whether it awaits a students entry into graduate school to occur.
Potentially less personal interaction with faculty—larger classes, use of TAs, etc.— more difficult to get to know professors, obtain recommendation letters, etc.
Depending on the university, undergraduates potentially may only have a minor role in research projects or limited access to advanced equipment.</p>
<p>While LACs may not have a huge output of high quality research, the educational purpose of fostering undergraduate research is to teach the process of conducting research. A lot more goes into this than just another publishable journal article. These things include the excitement of conducting research and all the creativity, imagination, persistence, knowledge, and skills that a student can muster. Lets face it, scientific breakthroughs are not an everyday occurrence. Most research articles, even coming out of major labs, are very limited in scope and impact. Science proceeds by experimental replication in small increments. Only once there are an accumulation of findings in an area, can findings be synthesized and conclusions drawn.</p>
<p>What do you mean by “leaders of society?”<br>
Jim Kim, new president of Dartmouth. Stephen Chu, Nobel prize physicist, Dept. of energy; Harold Varmus, Nobel prize in Medicine, head of NIH (interestingly started as an English B.A. from Amherst College).
I could go on. It depends what is meant by leadership.</p>
<p>How about
“PhD’s in science are not the only leaders of society?”</p>
<p>Well, yes, Nobel prize winners in sciences tend to be scientists.</p>
<p>I mean higher level leadership, not technical positions in government agencies or one of a few thousand university/ college presidents.</p>
<p>President, congress, top cabinet positions (such as Secretary of State), that kind of thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But should we really select a university over a LAC (or vice versa) because of the impact that it might have on our ability to acquire the top 0.01% of government jobs?</p>
<p>
So maybe small liberal arts colleges are not really designed to support a major as specialized as East Asian Studies. Maybe the model is more suited to accommodate traditional majors like History, with at most a couple of courses in Japanese or Chinese history.</p>
<p>But have a look at Weleyan University’s current curriculum:
[Office</a> of Academic Affairs - Wesleyan University](<a href=“http://www.wesleyan.edu/acaf/dept.html]Office”>http://www.wesleyan.edu/acaf/dept.html)
Gosh, this small college is trying to support an “East Asian Studies Program”,a “Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies Program”, “Film Studies”, " Informatics and Modeling", a “Latin American Studies Program”, “Less Commonly Taught Languages”, “Medieval Studies”,etc. The curriculum looks like the latest dining hall menus. No more institutional brown goo and gray glop, gotta have your imported wood-burning pizza oven and sushi chef along with a staff dietitian for the vegans. Awesome.</p>
<p>Maybe Wesleyan is well endowed enough to bring it off, but if other small colleges are trying to compete in the same space, it’s not surprising if some of them are stretched thin trying to serve up more than meat, potato, and vegetable majors.</p>
<p>Wesleyan, like Oberlin, has a long tradition of East Asian studies. It even has a Freeman center for East Asian studies. There are some LACs that are strong in either East or South Asian studies and sometimes both; but that’s not the case across the board (that is also true of many state universities–I would not recommend VT for someone interested in South Asian studies, for instance).</p>
<p>If graduates of Saint John’s College can get into medical school at the high rate they do, then obviously there is great practical value even to the aspects of a liberal-arts education that would appear, on the surface, impractical. “People” may perceive LACs as second-tier, but hiring managers and professional and graduate school admissions officers generally know better.</p>