<p>I sense a consensus: a Stanford BA/BS is better for getting a job, a Reed BA is better for grad school admission, but these are broad generalizations. Stanford is one of the top grad school destinations for Reed grads (for the “best of both worlds”), and Stanford is 2/3 grad school.</p>
<p>FWIW, I am not part of any such concensus. Stanford grads have access to many other opportunities following BA, that does not mean in any way that those among them who desire to pursue PhD are in any way disadvantaged in attaining this objective.</p>
<p>IMO, if data was available for all desirable outcomes : Law/ med/MBA, engineering, investment banking jobs, consulting jobs- a very different picture would emerge. More stanford grads don’t get PhD simply because they have what is for them better options. Not because they can’t.</p>
<p>IMO.</p>
<p>In the past I have seen some on-campus recruiting statistics for some LACs (not Reed), they did not paint a pretty picture regarding ready employment options.
So, if you can’t get a job, what are you going to do? For some, the answer is: go to grad school. So they go in greater %, not necessarily because their school is “bettter” at providing options for their grads, but perhaps actually because it is “worse”.</p>
<p>Well, I think there are some general fundamental differences between these students, and that those attracted to the Big U (for a wider selection of majors and classes, better labs) are not the students attracted to the LAC (for small conference-type classes and close mentorship with profs). Some attribute the higher LAC grad school percentages to self selection, and I think that’s a significant part of it. Just as more Stanford grads don’t get PhDs because they don’t want them, more LAC grads likewise don’t want a BA job; they chose LACs specifically for grad school prep. All these schools are excellent, and we should be glad they’re not all alike. IMO. Generalizations, with exceptions.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Maybe - that’s an unconfirmed hypothesis - but what I think we know from the HEDS findings is that LAC graduates actually complete Ph.D.s at higher rates than university graduates, not just that they attend at higher rates.</p>
<p>Moreover, if you believe the Wall Street Journal “feeder school” study, top LACs also have very competitive rates of placement into top professional schools (law, medicine, business).
Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Wellesley all outperform Georgetown, Northwestern, and Hopkins (national universities with strong undergraduate pre-professional programs). Haverford, Bowdoin, and Middlebury outperform Hopkins, Cornell, Notre Dame, Berkeley and WUSTL in the same study.</p>
<p>Second tier? You’re kidding, right? Have you looked at the admit percentages? Compared to what?</p>
<p>dke, the comparison is to national universities.</p>
<p>The OP’s question focuses on perception.
Some of us tried to shift the focus to reality.
One area we’ve concentrated on is research performance, because in that area it appears there may be a significant difference between LACs and national universities. This is relevant, I think, even if you do not care much about research, because it may have some bearing on faculty competence.</p>
<p>One poster (coureur) observed that few papers by LAC professors seem to get published in major scientific journals. Another poster cited a ~15 year old study indicating that LAC research does get published, and does get cited, at competitive rates.</p>
<p>If we focus on student outcomes (not faculty performance), limited data suggests that LAC graduates tend to out-compete university graduates in at least one area (Ph.D. completion). Those findings have been challenged on 2 grounds. First, we don’t have good complete data on where LAC graduates get their doctorates. Second, the university graduates may have other good options open to them besides Ph.D. programs, and may be pursuing them at higher rates than LAC graduates do. But, as I pointed out above, the top LACs seem to do very well not only in Ph.D. completion, but also in placements to elite law/medical/business schools.</p>
<p>I think it’s interesting to observe that whenever one of these threads gets a head of steam the term “universities” nearly always becomes synonymous with HYPSM.</p>
<p>^That’s okay since the LACs tend to become synomyous with Reed and a handful of others that studies have shown produce lots of PhDs. I’m pretty sure that a study of the universities and LACs that the B students attend would show a lot more similarities in outcomes.</p>
<p>I’m sure your typical Colby college grad assumes that his or her employment prospects are equal to those of your typical UIUC or Wisconsin grad given all those small and nurturing classes and the attention showered on him or her by the loving and award- winning faculty. Particularly in the hard sciences, where all those fabulous research opportunities abound.</p>
<p>How much cognitive dissonance can you guys tolerate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only relevant for those who are focused on science and research. For those who are into the humanities, this whole discussion is irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t realize the purpose of college was solely to impress future employers. I thought there was a life of the mind thing going on, but perhaps I was mistaken, and it’s all about the future $$.</p>
<p>“Maybe - that’s an unconfirmed hypothesis”</p>
<p>One that nevertheless I believe to be correct, and IMO most other people would probably also find highly likely. But YMMV.</p>
<p>“if you believe the Wall Street Journal “feeder school” study, top LACs also have very competitive rates of placement into top professional schools…”</p>
<p>I was specifically discussing Stanford vs. Reed, not all LACs. </p>
<p>AS for WSJ, my prior comment regarding denominator applies here as well. For example, only 1/3 of Cornell’s students study in its Arts & sciences college, but its destinations, as a % of all students at the whole university, are being compared to LACs that only have Arts &Sciences students. The future destinations of its Hotel, Engineering & Architecture college students should have no bearing on the odds that one of its Arts & Sciences College grads might have of getting into a top Law school, etc. But unfortunately they are all comingled here, and elsewhere, which can mislead.</p>
<p>Schools whose student bodies are most homogeneous will always show better as %. This does not mean that an equally capable student at a less homogeneous institution would be at any disadvantage. Where hundreds of students attend these top programs from your school, there is reason to suggest that you can do it too, from there. If you are good enough. Regardless of whether your suitemate doesn’t have that goal, or doesnt have what it takes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be hard to focus a discussion like this, and introduce supporting data, without constraining it to a small set of schools. To reword the topic question: Are the top N liberal arts colleges perceived as second tier in comparison to the top N national universities? </p>
<p>Suppose we examine the top 50 institutions by 75th percentile SATs, in a ranking that puts universities and LACs in the same pot:
[Top</a> 500 Ranked Universities for Highest SAT 75th Percentile Scores](<a href=“USA University College Directory - U.S. University Directory - State Universities and College Rankings”>Top 500 Ranked Colleges - Highest SAT 75th Percentile Scores)
In that ranking, I count 20 LACs interleaved among national universities. That’s 40% of the 50 top-scoring schools.</p>
<p>But according to one study, residential LACs account for only 3% of US college graduates
(source: [The</a> Nations Top Liberal Arts Colleges](<a href=“http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml]The”>http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml)). So, one might conclude that a disproportionate number of high-scoring students are voting with their feet in favor of LACs (thus, presumably, don’t perceive LACs as second tier).</p>
<p>On the other hand, all of the Ivies have higher matriculation yields than all the top LACs (with one little exception: Barnard College at 47% vs. Cornell, the lowest-yielding Ivy, at 46%). It might be tempting to conclude that top LACs are perceived as “second tier” in comparison to Ivy League colleges, but we can’t really justify that conclusion without knowing more about the preferences of students who choose not to attend those LACs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, but it’s not a good idea to use Ph.D. production as the most important or sole metric for judging whether a college or university well prepares its students for the life of the mind. I have to hope that graduates who do not go on to acquire Ph.D.s do have a life of the mind even when their minds are focused on blueprints or legal precedents or EKGs rather than Hegel or Foucault.
There is no study that shows that prospective law, medical, engineering students, etc… are less well prepared educationally than students intending to go on to grad school to study anthropology of English or history. or that they are less well rounded intellectually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is similarly interesting that when LACs are discussed we tend to refer to AWS primarily. </p>
<p>It is sometimes hard to reconcile the purported nurturing and undergrad focus of LACs when looking at some of the dismal graduation rates, often considered a metric of college education quality. The 75% 6 year graduation rate of Reed is less than that of many State Us, where students are supposedly just numbers. Even Harvey Mudd’s graduation rate at 84% is significantly less than its university counterparts Caltech at 89% or MIT at 93%. There is more to the equation that the size of the student body. Maybe before touting PhD completion rates, some schools should focus on graduating their students first.</p>
<p>Stanford vs. Reed is basically a silly comparison. Reed is a great college, but Stanford is a world-class university with the ability essentially to hand pick its students. HYPS vs. LACs in general is not going to be a fair contest, even if you limit it to Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona. It’s not like the LACs aren’t going to be able to put any points on the board, but the outcome will not be in doubt. If you’re going to look at Stanford vs. Reed, then you have to look at, say, Amherst vs. NYU. Guess what? Amherst is going to look fine. </p>
<p>A lot more interesting is Penn, Cornell, Northwestern, Georgetown, Hopkins, NYU, Boston University, USC, Michigan, Penn State vs. LACs.</p>
<p>Of all my daughter’s high school and college friends who just graduated – and these run 100% to artsy humanities majors – the one with the best permanent job (maybe the only one with a real, career-track, private sector job that doesn’t involve making lattes, folding shirts, or reporting to Dad) went to Oberlin. My daughter wants to find out what her friend had to do to get that job, but is waiting until she can do it in person, since she will need to read the body language to estimate the degree of truthfulness in the answer.</p>
<p>The life of the mind argument is, frankly, ■■■■■■■■. IMO. The numbers of students who get PhDs following undergrad at the nation’s leading universities vastly exceeds the numbers from the LACs. There are many more highly intellectual people at these universities than at LACs, and a large number of them will get PhDs. A lot more of them than at the LACs. I was a physics major at Cornell, one thing I cannot say is that the environment I experienced was insufficiently intellectual. Many of my fellow students went on to top grad programs. There were also people at the university studying Hotel Adminstration, this in no way negatively impacted my personal academic experience or prospects.</p>
<p>"Stanford vs. Reed is basically a silly comparison. Reed is a great college, but Stanford is a world-class university with the ability essentially to hand pick its students. "</p>
<p>Evidently vossron disagrees with you on that point, since it was he who made the assertion in post #361.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Maybe the question does indeed need to be reworded. But even then, comparisons are difficult to make since each school is different.</p>
<p>Just recently, I’ve had a glimpse into the research differences among HYPSM, top 30 research university, and top 20 LAC. HYPSM (meaning, one of those) is far superior in terms of expectations, lab space, and equipment as well as undergrad interaction with grad students and postdocs. Top LAC and top 30 research have similar lab expectations, with the LAC offering more interaction with the professor. </p>
<p>I’ve also had experience with the difference between the same top LAC and the same top 30 research university in foreign language study and English. Top LAC wins by a long shot. But what if I compared different LACs and different top 30 research unis? I might get a completely different answer.</p>
<p>In terms of prestige, which was the original question, more or less, it depends on who is doing the evaluating. Your average Joe on the street won’t have heard of the LACs, so they are worse than second tier. Your average grad school admissions committee will know the differences – strengths and weaknesses – of the top research universities and top LACs. They might not know about the obscure LACs. To them, a top LAC is second tier only the way UNC, UMich, and even Duke and JHU are “second tier” – that is, they are not HYPSM. </p>
<p>But I think the REAL rephrasing of the OP question is, “Are liberals arts colleges perceived as second tier by College Confidential members?” I think that question has been amply answered here – to some, absolutely, and to others, no way. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this true proportionately? Since a big LAC means 2500 students, the percentage of students earning PhDs is more important than raw numbers.</p>