Are liberal arts colleges perceived as second tier?

<p>curmudgeon, you make a good point. My advisor in grad school, for example, was highly regarded in his narrow field and had published hundreds of papers. I read them all. I would say there were a couple dozen original papers from early in his career, followed by the same paper, paraphrased, republished again and again thereafter. He wrote at least one “review” article a year in which only the last paragraph was changed to reflect whatever data had come out of his labs in the preceding year. (This is a slight exaggeration. Slight.)</p>

<p>He was a pioneer in his particular area, had taught on three continents, wrote the leading textbook on the subject, had no time for or interest in undergraduates whatsoever, scarcely more interest in grad students unless they were writing a paper that he’d be putting his name on, and generally was no kind of teacher at all. But by golly, he could publish any crap he churned out, because he was who he was, and everyone knew him.</p>

<p>BTW, I do believe the numbers,above, should be considered and discussed . Just wondering how high that flag ought to be flying.</p>

<p>

Nothing sells like a SOLD sign.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well I would hope not. We have not reached any clear consensus. The cows might all be hamburger by the time we do.</p>

<p>I think counting citations, as in Zapfino’s link, is an interesting way to measure professors’ research impact. It gets around the problem Curmudgeon brings up. A big name contributor might help sell journals, but the article won’t be cited repeatedly if it’s not significant. It probably won’t be cited much if it’s in an obscure publication, either. So we wouldn’t have to worry overly much about which journals count as “major”. If an article is cited frequently, then the article is major.</p>

<p>If LACs are capable of generating impressive numbers of research citations, then it’s a little harder to dismiss them as “second tier”. Their primary output still has got to be the students they graduate, but it would be nice to know the people who teach them are influential enough to get cited.</p>

<p>I just wanted to bump this up because there aren’t enough posts in this thread. I don’t think this topic has been thoroughly discussed. :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, not true at all. In fact, a way to look pathetic is to try to pass off a letter to Nature (which is not peer-reviewed) as a research publication.</p>

<p>With luck, your letter to Nature (a couple of paragraphs long) will be split over 2 pages in the journal, so you can list it on your CV and hope that people think it is a Short Communication, which is better.</p>

<p>Dstark–you are such a troublemaker!</p>

<p>And yes, definitely, a few more posts, and we can get this question settled so it’ll never come up again.</p>

<p>So glad I’m not into science and neither are my kids – this emphasis on research and publications is amusing!</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>I know this is getting to be a tangent to this discussion (and may delight dstark), but I can’t let such a gross misstatement go unanswered.</p>

<p>Original research is published (after peer-review of course) by Nature in one of two forms: Research articles that have a page limit of 5 pages, and “Letters” which have a page limit of 4 pages. I realize, the term “Letters” is a bit misleading and about 22 years ago when I first read an issue, even I thought that it was something like “letters to the editor”, which of course, it isn’t. </p>

<p>Nature uses the term “Brief communications arising” for peer reviewed scientific comments (frequently critical) on specific “articles” or “letters” that were previously published in the journal. The original authors usually will publish a response alongside the brief communication.</p>

<p>The typical ‘letter to the editor’ is called “correspondence” in Nature.</p>

<p>In C.C terms, an article or letter is like starting a new thread, while a brief communication is like posting a reply. Sending in correspondence is like posting a thread in the Cafe section- doesn’t add to your post count ;)</p>

<p>Here’s a link for those who are interested further:</p>

<p>[Site</a> map : For authors and referees : Nature](<a href=“http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/sitemap.html]Site”>http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/sitemap.html)</p>

<p>The Haverford papers that were discussed earlier were “Letters to Nature”, which are truly very difficult to get. A couple of those can go a very long way in seecuring tenure at top research universities.</p>

<p>I’m trying to wean myself off of this thread because in defending my position I find myself pushed into attacking LACs more than I want or meant to and certainly more than the schools deserve. But as a side point point, I must jump in to say that Vicariousparent is correct. The “Letters” section of Nature is the main forum where the original research reports are published. Being British, Nature does things differently. “Letters” in Nature are not equivalent to letters to the editor. They are reports of significant original research and are equivalent to the main papers section of an American journal.</p>

<p>Dstark…be careful what you wish for!</p>

<p>(Let’s see what we can do with the new “What makes HYP different” thread to get it to surpass this one!)</p>

<p>:)…</p>

<p>dstark:</p>

<p>ROTFL! As long as CC is there, this discussion will flourish:(</p>

<p>^^ O.K. everybody, I think coureur is gone now.</p>

<p>So as I was about to say, I cannot believe the awesome research facilities you see at small liberal arts colleges these days. Those LAC Labs must be smokin’!</p>

<p>Most technological breakthroughs happen at LACs too. The big name research univs just have old facilities and use undergrads to fetch coffee. :)</p>

<p>And that coffee is probably brewed by TA’s who don’t speak English, perked in large and impersonal lecture halls, where Nobel prize winners keep their doors locked to make sure that undergrads never distract them.</p>

<p>Unless they are also House Masters, in which case, it’s their jobs to let undergrads distract them! (cf. Dudley Hershbach at Harvard). :)</p>

<p>Let’s be a little real here. Few undergraduates at any level are publishing in Nature or Science. For most undergraduates I know in the sciences, the main purpose of “research” is that it bolsters their medical school applications. There is little or no indication that whatever they are doing at LACs fails to serve that purpose.</p>

<p>My neighbor has spent most of his career as a non-MD (PhD) faculty member at medical schools. His opinions about medical students, and non-PhD medical researchers, are largely unprintable, but the gist is that he doesn’t consider any of them scientists. HIS kid – the one he likes, at least – is going to a good LAC. Not that he thinks the kid will be better prepared to be a hard science PhD there; it’s that he thinks the kid will be better prepared to do almost anything else there.</p>

<p>JHS, I think the point was that at liberal arts colleges, few professors are publishing in Nature or Science.</p>

<p>Maybe it is just modesty or something. Did I not hear little Wesleyan University has come up with an anti-aging pill? They don’t consider it a big deal, that’s why never even published it, plus they want to be sure corporations don’t use it for evil purposes (like profit). You just have to know to ask for the orange jimmies at the campus ice cream bar.</p>

<p>I chose Reed College over Stanford after being offered full scholarships to both. I do not think that an LAC is second-tier; if anything, Reed’s curriculum is much more rigorous and demanding. Those who know colleges are aware of the subtle intricacies of each school- and when it comes to grad school, the folks who let you in are the folks who know colleges.</p>