<p>Wow, this thread brings me a new perspective in my college search - the other side of the “ivy” coin. </p>
<p>To the OP and the first post, on a personal level and by asking a lot of my friends in school, I honestly think a big reason for most students to bother working towards an ivy acceptance is the prestige. In using the term “prestige,” I mostly mean that it’s a pride thing - they want to prove to everyone that they’re smart, and an acceptance letter to any of the ivies validates their “intelligence.” When they say that prestige is a factor in their choice, I really don’t think that landing a well-paying job in the market because of the school’s name recognition is what they mean by “prestige.” Are there people who actually like the ivies because they would feel right at home? Are there people who are actually committed to career path and focused on achieving their career goals? No doubt, but even with those people I still think that an ivy acceptance feeds their ego a bit. I myself am no exception, but after seeing this thread I’m starting to reconsider my college list.</p>
<p>Small classes are swell, but I would not say that a Haverford education is greater than an Ivy’s because it has more small classes. The level of knowledge and opportunities gained from a larger Ivy school with more larger classes is equal to or greater than Haverford, which is not the pinnacle of LAC’s.</p>
<p>Having both attended and taught at Ivies, and now seeing first-hand the education my daughter is getting at Haverford, I respectfully disagree. The education she’s getting is at least the equivalent of, and in some respects superior to, what she could get in her field at any Ivy. Now it’s true, her LAC doesn’t offer as many fields of study as an Ivy, so there’s a trade-off in that regard. But for what she’s decided to study, that doesn’t matter. The content is the same, and she’s getting it in small, intense, challenging classes where she is constantly required to be an active learner–not as a passive consumer in giant lecture halls. She also has very close relationships both within and outside the classroom with every faculty member in her department, she sees and interacts with them virtually every day, and they are all 100% in her corner. How many undergrads at Harvard can say that?</p>
<p>Maybe that’s why such an extraordinarily high percentage of her classmates are also professors’ kids.</p>
<p>Class sizes are one measurable factor related to academic engagement and interaction. However, there are opportunities for engagement and interaction that are not captured in the class size statistics. Example:
[Harvard</a> Mathematics Department : Undergraduate Mathematics Colloquium aka Math Table](<a href=“http://www.math.harvard.edu/mathtable/]Harvard”>Math table Information | Harvard Mathematics Department)</p>
I think it’s a good point that it may matter what your major is. My son is a music major at Yale, and I think he has had an experience in his major very much like what you describe–and he’s had access to resources that wouldn’t be available at a smaller institution.</p>
<p>The downside to this, of course, is that you have only 342 classes to choose from. While that seems like plenty, it isn’t - it means that a single student’s specific interests are limited to a very small range of classes. Forget about real depth; you can’t get it in the classroom at most LACs. I know, some might cry foul and say “but you can get the depth!” Not like at a university.</p>
<p>Princeton offers 836 classes. Yale offers 1,243. This also undercounts the huge variety of graduate-level courses that undergrads are allowed to take (but for whatever reason, didn’t take in that semester and so it wasn’t counted in the CDS). Indeed, that’s probably why Yale’s figure is 1.5x Princeton’s - both have the same undergrad size, but Yale has 2x as many grad students, which creates a demand for more courses that undergrads are allowed to take.</p>
<p>I’m curious what the class size distribution would have to be in order for P, Y, etc. to match Haverford and its peers in terms of actual student experience. Their small classes would probably have to exceed 80-85%, and large classes reduced significantly.</p>
<p>^^I guess I don’t understand why 342 classes are not enough. We are talking about undergrads here. If I want to get a PhD in medieval witchcraft and its impact on feudal society, I can do that in grad school. I would question how important the variety of courses is for students who are NOT intending to pursue doctoral work.</p>
<p>And again, to bclintonk’s point, how many of these obscure classes is a student likely to take? If you take those out, you are left with a lot of big lecture classes. If my child had a choice between an Ivy or Haverford or another good LAC, the choice would be the LAC any time.</p>
<p>“But the bigger issue to me is why we exalt these kids simply because of their fortunate circumstances. Are Ivy League graduates making a difference in the world more than other people? Are they more ethical, more innovative, more visionary? Or are they just (in many cases) lucky?”</p>
<p>I don’t find that “we” exalt these kids at all. I think you are vastly overstating the importance and prevalence of the small swathe of people for whom an Ivy League (or similar elite level) education is the be-all-end-all. Most people in this country simply couldn’t care less about the Ivy League, don’t aim for their children to go to one, and upon hearing that someone goes there, don’t think much more than “huh, that kid must be bright” and then they move on with their day.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I am sure you are right. Too much time on CC and among the status-obsessed in my community makes a person lose perspective sometimes. :)</p>
<p>What was your child’s major? Recruitment in engineering and certain business majors are good at many schools. Before the economy tanked, the difference between top tiered schools and lower ranked ones were that those with liberal arts majors could still get a good job in i-banking or other business sectors. I read somewhere that the majority of Penn grads before the economy tanked went into banking or finance. Recruiting has dropped heavily in those fields and now many liberal arts grads at these schools are unemployed. I don’t think it’s worth it now, especially if these kids have to take out loans.</p>
<p>High stress to stay in? Grade inflation is rampant among the Ivies. Don’t half or more than half of Harvard grads graduate with “honors”? It’s also highly dependent on what your major is. If you major in something easy it’s easy to coast through. The only undergrads in the country that I would say are “high stress to stay in” are MIT and Cal-tech.</p>
<p>I chose between UChicago (Ivy-type school) and Vassar and Wesleyan (LAC’s). I chose UChicago because I plan on majoring in biology. The number of Bio. courses and research opportunities at UChicago are overwhelmingly greater than those at V/W. UChicago also caps many of its courses at 25 students (I think), so I’m not worried about having large courses. If your child needs a more personal environment, LAC’s will do, but that does not mean they get a better education. The extent of knowledge gained is dependent on the student, not the school. I love the smallness of LAC’s and the communities they harbor, as well as the small classes they provide. I applied to many of them but we must consider the cons of LAC’s and the things they don’t provide as well that are as equally a part of an education as small class sizes.</p>
<p>The reason 342 classes may not be enough is that the whole idea behind having an undergraduate “major” is so that you can pursue in depth a some more specialized subject. For example, in my own field (Immunology) a student who goes to a solid research university will often be able to take specific undergrad courses in say immunology, advanced immunology, bacteriology, virology, hematology, embryology, parasitology, and on and on. In most LACs many of those would be covered but only in a week or two long section of a general biology course plus a tiny handful of more specialized courses.</p>
<p>If an overview is all you want or need then an LAC may well suit your needs, but for many scientific fields a little deeper and more comprehensive undergrad course of study may be preferable.</p>
<p>Totally bogus argument over number of classes, at least at my daughter’s LAC. If I’m reading the Common Data Set correctly, 342 classes is for one semester. Presumably for a year, it’s roughly double that, or 684 per year. Standard course load at Haverford is 4 classes per semester, 8 per year, 32 over 4 years; except like most Haverford students my daughter is planning to spend a semester abroad in her junior year, so it’s really just 28 classes, of which she’s already completed 16, including all her distribution requirements, so just 12 to go of which most will be in her major where there are still plenty of classes to take. Can she fill out a challenging, fulfilling schedule of 12 more classes out of 684 per year over her remaining 2 years? Well, I like the odds.</p>
<p>But if she needs more, there are another 315 per semester at Haverford’s sister college, Bryn Mawr, a mile away. The two schools have a fully integrated course registration system that makes it as easy for her to take a class at Bryn Mawr as at Haverford, and in her field, as in many others, the curriculum is coordinated between the two schools to limit duplication and to maximize upper-level curricular opportunities for students at both schools, far beyond what either could offer individually. And then, if that’s not enough, she could take classes at Swarthmore; quite a few Haverford students do, because Swat has some unique strengths in areas where Haverford and Bryn Mawr may not offer as much. If that’s still enough, she could take any course at Penn that’s not offered at Haverford or Bryn Mawr. So that brings her up to many thousands of courses a year that are available to her. Of which she needs to choose exactly 12.</p>
<p>And this is a problem? I don’t think so, except insofar as it’s an embarrassment of riches that in fact most Ivies can’t match.</p>
<p>^^And even for smaller schools that don’t have the resources of a Haverford, I still think most students can find more than enough courses of interest to fill four years. Many also encourage “design-your-own” majors and independent study, so the options are limitless.</p>
<p>One thing you say is true, PAGRok: “The extent of knowledge gained is dependent on the student, not the school.”</p>
<p>I think the number of courses is a real trade-off, though. I took a look at the courses offered by Haverford’s music department, and there aren’t very many, including some whole areas that you will find at a larger school. It looks like much more is done through independent study, which has pros and cons. At Haverford, for instance, there isn’t a composition seminar that is separate from the tonal harmony class all the music majors have to take–at Yale, there are two levels of composition seminar, as well as more specialized classes on writing for musical theater, etc. There’s also a lot more music technology offered at Yale.</p>
<p>I guess I would say that for both LACs and research universities, you can minimize the tradeoffs by taking advantage of optional opportunities–like seeking out more interaction and smaller classes at the research universities, and like taking courses at sister or consortium schools at LACs. In both cases, not all students take advantage of those things.</p>
<p>bclintonk and sally305, it’s not just about the number of interesting courses available. I’m certain that I’d have found plenty of courses that interest me if I gone to a LAC like Haverford; I like to learn, in general. But the question is whether I could find enough courses which interest me the most - as in, courses that align with my favorite topics of interest, which I find the most fulfilling. Sure, I’d have been okay with the more general offerings of a LAC; but would I have been truly fulfilled as I would have at a university? No. And the kinds of courses I’m talking about are not niche/obscure topics, but ones standard at most universities and absent at most LACs.</p>
<p>It’s like the choice of two buffets: one buffet has the standard foods, like mashed potatoes and corn and baked chicken and whatnot, but that’s about it. The other buffet has everything, from green beans to chicken tikka masala to risotto to filet mignon. Your argument is essentially, “either way, you’re not going to be hungry at the end.” Yeah, well, I’d have liked a samosa, because that’s tastier than mashed potatoes. ;)</p>
<p>Of course, for some students, the offerings of a LAC are fine. I’m just saying that the size of a LAC does have (academic) downsides, which apply to many students.</p>
<p>Re: Bryn Mawr, most of those 312 courses are probably the same courses being offered at Haverford (just the standard courses, again), with a minority actually being different. Regardless, I don’t know why anyone would want to schlepp over to Bryn Mawr a mile away several times a week, or even multiple times a day. Too much hassle, IMO.</p>
<p>Phantasmagoric: no dog in this fight, but Bryn Mawr to Haverford isn’t really a schlep at all. You must not be familiar with how truly close those campuses are.</p>
<p>But more to the point - why did a thread about “are Ivies worth the bother” morph to the usual “LAC vs research university” discussion? That is a separate discussion. Whether an Ivy education is worth the bother – does that mean the eight 8 Ivy schools specifically, or is that a larger question about top / elite educations, whether LAC or research uni?</p>
<p>^ well, he said a mile. I don’t like a mile. :p</p>
<p>The discussion got here because the point was made that Ivies have small classes like LACs, which bclintonk countered with the fact that the size of LACs allows students to take more such classes. I brought up the fact that, to the credit of the Ivies (though I didn’t specify them specifically), you have more course variety. I was going to mention Ivies specifically in my last post, but figured it’s a generally true statement.</p>
<p>The point about LACs not offering specialized undergrad courses is not bogus. Just as a test I searched on the Haverford website that allows you to search Haverford, Bryn Mawr, and Swarthmore course offerings all at once:
[Haverford</a> College: Courses](<a href=“http://www.haverford.edu/academics/courses/]Haverford”>http://www.haverford.edu/academics/courses/)
I searched on each of the course topics I had listed in post #94 for Spring and Fall semesters. To its credit Haverford did offer one undergrad introductory immunology course this Spring but the rest of the courses were a big, fat zero. The only other hit was on “embryology,” but that turned out not to be a science course but a History of Genetics and Embyology course at Bryn Mawr - a social history course taught out of the Gender Studies department.</p>
<p>My old school, UC Davis, a fine but by no means top university, regularly offered courses in all those topics and many more similar ones besides. I find it incredible that now, in the age of HIV, H1N1, SARS, etc., that a high-end school that purports to offer a legitimate major in Biology does not offer a course in virology. Face it, Biology majors coming out of a mid-level UC are going have the opportunity for a lot stronger and more in depth study and knowledge in many topics than they could have found at top-level LAC.</p>