Benefit of Large Universities vs. small LACs?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>
[quote]
This has to be tempered by the fact that many large state universities limit the ability of students to choose certain majors. Specifically, many highly popular majors at certain large universities are capped in enrollment. Hence, you can go to a particular school and find out only later that you can't get into the major that you want, and hence are forced to major in something you don't really want (or transfer to some other school). If you can't get into the major that you want, then from your perspective, it is almost as if that major doesn't even exist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, you could say that. But even for those impacted majors, it's very possible to get into them. I would say that's a lot better than having no such major at all. For example, I remember on another thread someone was asking about a peculiar double major in a small LAC and someone else mentioned that UCI offered it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Actually, this is far more complicated than has just been stated, for reasons that you have alluded to already. You mentioned Harvard, so let's talk about Harvard. The value of the Harvard alumni network comes not from its size, because frankly, Harvard really isn't THAT big of a school and so doesn't have that many alumni, at least, relative to the behemoth public schools. What makes Harvard's alumni network so strong is not so much its size, but rather it's QUALITY. What I mean by that is that the average Harvard alumni, frankly, tends to be in a better career position than the average state school alumni and is therefore in a greater position to help you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, this is true, but I mentioned that some top schools have strong networking. But when talking about just a small private school versus a large state school, the advantage is there. Obviously there's no comparing to Harvard or Cal Tech, but compare a mid-tier UC to a no-name small private school...I believe the UC gives you a bigger advantage. I'm not talking about top private school vs. top public school, but in a more general sense.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But anyway, that's neither here nor there. The point is, many (probably most) students at Cal and elsewhere aren't that interested in becoming researchers. They just want to get a good job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That might be true, but Berkeley isn't doing too shabby in getting its students jobs either, especially fields like engineering or business (granted they are impacted). For those who want good research it's there.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This I agree with, but it depends on the person. It sounds like the difference between living in a large city and living in a suburb. Some people hate living in the city. Some people love it. I would argue that the total population in the US of people not living in cities is larger than people living in cities. Granted, some of those people just can't afford to live in cities, but I would still surmise that plenty of people who could live in them prefer not to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well it all depends on the person, when it comes down to it. Some people may downright hate Harvard or Yale. But we're trying to talk about things that appeal to most people.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
I'm not talking about top private school vs. top public school, but in a more general sense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And in the next breath you talk about Berkeley? Don't tell me that Berkeley is a "mid-tier UC" - it is in fact a top public. A bit of consistency here - if you're talking top schools, then the Harvard analogy is apt. If you're talking mid-level & "no-name" schools, then give us an analogy to a school that's not of Berkeley's caliber.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Sure, you could say that. But even for those impacted majors, it's very possible to get into them. I would say that's a lot better than having no such major at all. For example, I remember on another thread someone was asking about a peculiar double major in a small LAC and someone else mentioned that UCI offered it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. But even this gets more complicated as you unwind it. Like I've said many times in many other threads, you will probably end up not taking a job in the field that you majored in anyway. Furthermore, it brings up the issue of teaching quality. I know that for myself, I would rather be taking classes in a major that isn't exactly what I want, but that are well taught, rather than be taking classes in a major that I want, but that are poorly taught. A poorly taught class is no better than just reading the books on your own time. And this is where the emphasis of the LAC's on teaching quality comes into play. </p>

<p>I remember people that I know all signing up and being excited for a class about a subject that was exactly what they wanted. And then it turned out that the prof's teaching was mediocre at best. The prof was unintelligible and, even worse, didn't care about teaching a good class, and it showed. Basically, the class lectures were 'mailed in', having been done with conspicuously little effort. After that, the students then said that they were going to be cherry-picking classes that were well taught (as evidenced by teacher evals), regardless of whether the class was exactly what they wanted, as long as the class fulfilled their degree requirements. A good teacher can actually make you interested in a subject that you would not otherwise be interested in, by showing you why it is interesting. But a bad teacher can do just the opposite - can actually turn you off from your favorite subject. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, this is true, but I mentioned that some top schools have strong networking. But when talking about just a small private school versus a large state school, the advantage is there. Obviously there's no comparing to Harvard or Cal Tech, but compare a mid-tier UC to a no-name small private school...I believe the UC gives you a bigger advantage. I'm not talking about top private school vs. top public school, but in a more general sense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I understand, but then that also gets not only into the sheer size of the alumni network, but also its cohesiveness. A lot of UC alumni are quite indifferent about their school and just aren't very interested in helping out other alumni. Not that I'm singling out UC in any way - a lot of alumni at lots of schools are quite indifferent about their experience. Sheer size of the alumni network is, by itself, only a mildly positive correlating factor when it comes to assessing the value of that network. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That might be true, but Berkeley isn't doing too shabby in getting its students jobs either, especially fields like engineering or business (granted they are impacted). For those who want good research it's there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No doubt that is true. But I wouldn't be so quick to discount the research activities that happen at LAC's. LAC's seem to send a highly disproportionate percentage of their students to top PhD programs. For example, looking at the Caltech commencement data, in many years, there are more new Caltech PhD's who had originally completed their undergrad degrees at Harvey Mudd or even Pomona than at, say, UCLA, which is stunning when you consider just how many more students UCLA has compared to Mudd or Pomona. Now, granted, some of that is due to the fact that UCLA grads may want to just stay at UCLA for their PhD. But I can't imagine that that's a hugely strong factor for the simple fact is, Caltech is generally higher ranked in the PhD programs it has, relative to the equivalent programs at UCLA. The point is, there is clearly something good going on at LAC's like Mudd or Pomona such that a top PhD powerhouse like Caltech would be admitting a disproportionate percentage of students from there. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Well it all depends on the person, when it comes down to it. Some people may downright hate Harvard or Yale. But we're trying to talk about things that appeal to most people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As am I, and I would say that if you don't like a large campus environment, a UC is probably not for you. But naturally that's just stating the obvious. However, what I am saying is that, given US population patterns, it seems that the majority of Americans prefer living in suburbs or in rural areas. A disproportionate number of LAC's are located in the suburbs or in rural areas.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
I agree. But even this gets more complicated as you unwind it. Like I've said many times in many other threads, you will probably end up not taking a job in the field that you majored in anyway. Furthermore, it brings up the issue of teaching quality. I know that for myself, I would rather be taking classes in a major that isn't exactly what I want, but that are well taught, rather than be taking classes in a major that I want, but that are poorly taught.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So let's just leave it at large universities are advantageous in that they offer many majors and LACs are advantageous in superior teaching quality.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, what I am saying is that, given US population patterns, it seems that the majority of Americans prefer living in suburbs or in rural areas. A disproportionate number of LAC's are located in the suburbs or in rural areas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhh, urban areas are the most densely populated areas by its definition. Most students seem to prefer attending a school in an urban environment which explains the popularity of UCLA (most applications of any school) and NYU (ranked #1 dream school by students).</p>

25

<p>Nobody's mentioned the fact that the additional majors at big state U's are mostly very specific, like landscape architecture, industrial engineering, entomology, etc. If you want a major like that, then you'll probably know so in high school (as you frequently need to be admitted just into that program), and then of course you should definitely go to a state school. If you are somewhat unsure but know you want just a general liberal arts degree in something like economics or biology, then lacs and big Us offer almost the exact same majors, so it's really not an issue for most people.</p>

26

<p>IMO, the ideal environment is a very small research university. The likes of Dartmouth, Tufts, WUSTL, etc. You get the best of both worlds.</p>

27

<p>Hmm...I don't know how much Dartmouth actually does research. Something like Princeton or CalTech might be a better bet.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Uhh, urban areas are the most densely populated areas by its definition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Population density is not the issue. The issue is where do people, on an aggregate basis, want to live. And the truth is, the popuations of most major cities in the US are dwarfed by the populations of the surrounding suburbs. </p>

<p>For example, take the Bay Area. Only about 2 million people actually live in the 3 major cities in the Bay Area (about 900k in San Jose proper, about 700k in San Francisco, 400k in Oakland). Even if you want to add in other highly urban areas like Berkeley, you still end up with the calculation that the majority of people in the Bay Area do not live in urban areas, but are living in the suburbs/exurbs. Silicon Valley west of San Jose, for example, is basically just one really big suburb. Heck, even San Jose proper is, except for a small smidgen around downtown, not really highly urbanized. The only true 'urban' areas in the Bay Area are San Francisco, Oakland, and to some extent Berkeley. Nor do I think that cost has much to do with the issue. Granted, some Bay Area people live in the suburbs because they can't afford to live in the city. But the Bay Area also has wide swaths of suburbs (especially in Silicon Valley) filled with people who have plenty of money. These people could easily afford to live in an urban area. They just choose not to. Hence, the urban 'draw' doesn't seem to work on them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Most students seem to prefer attending a school in an urban environment which explains the popularity of UCLA (most applications of any school) and NYU (ranked #1 dream school by students).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I highly doubt that this proves the case, mostly because these metrics seem to indicate little. After all, the act of applying to a school is not simply an indication of where you want to go, but is also a combination of where you think you can get in and whether you can pay for it. Let's face it. I think most people who are applying to UCLA (or any other UC) would rather be going to Stanford if they could get in (and afford it), and Stanford is CLEARLY a suburban school. They don't apply because they don't think they can get in so they're not going to waste effort in trying. It's like me not trying out for the Red Sox, because I know I'm not going to make it, so why waste my time? </p>

<p>Or you could look at it the other way. I am quite certain that almost every single Stanford undergrad who was also a California state resident could have gone to UCLA instead. But they apparently chose to turn down a city for a suburb. </p>

<p>So, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say - what about Harvard, which is a highly desirable school in an urban area? Well, I think the Harvard example demonstrates what's really going on. I strongly suspect that if Harvard was located out in the middle of nowhere, most people would still want to go there, just because it's Harvard. Yeah, you might lose some guys who were attracted to the Boston/Cambridge urban environment, but I doubt that you would lose that many guys. That just shows that, really, the draw of the city is really not that strong of a factor. After all, Harvard beats Columbia in cross-admits and revealed preferences, yet New York is clearly a far more urban area than Boston is. Heck, even Stanford and Princeton beat Columbia, and Stanford and Princeton are clearly suburban schools. {It's debateable as to whether Yale is really in an urban area or not}.</p>

<p>To give you a historical example, before the world wars, the most prestigious schools in the world were probably Oxford and Cambridge. To this day, they are probably the only 2 schools in the world that can match the draw of Harvard. Yet Oxford and Cambridge are both basically in the suburbs. The UK has plenty of excellent schools in the major cities, especially in London, where you have LSE, UCL, ICL, etc. And London is clearly one of the most interesting cities in the world. But most British students apparently seem to prefer to decamp to the suburbs to attend Oxbridge. Hence, the draw of a glamorous city like London apparently isn't THAT strong of a draw.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
No doubt that is true. But I wouldn't be so quick to discount the research activities that happen at LAC's. LAC's seem to send a highly disproportionate percentage of their students to top PhD programs. For example, looking at the Caltech commencement data, in many years, there are more new Caltech PhD's who had originally completed their undergrad degrees at Harvey Mudd or even Pomona than at, say, UCLA, which is stunning when you consider just how many more students UCLA has compared to Mudd or Pomona.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are many reasons why Harvey Mudd might send a disproportionate number of graduates to Caltech. Maybe that's because Harvey Mudd, being a very selective college, has a student body that is more academically-inclined and thus more likely to choose a grad school career than UCLA's. Similarlly, it may be the case that LAC graduates, having had a liberal arts as opposed to a specialized professional education, are less likely to get a job (particularly in engineering/technology) fresh out of college and therefore are also more inclined to apply to graduate school. In the case of Caltech specifically, maybe because of geographic proximity and a well-known friendly rivalry with Harvey Mudd, admission officers may have a positive bias towards Harvey Mudd applicants. </p>

<p>Note that I am not saying any of the hypotheses in the previous paragraph is true. I'm just arguing that the Caltech commencement data alone do not allow us to make any immediate direct conclusion about the quality of research at Harvey Mudd or any other LAC for that matter. To be frank, I personally can neither dismiss nor praise Harvey Mudd's research as I'm not familiar with it. From anecdotal evidence in my own area of research, I don't remember seeing any major journal or even conference paper written by a Harvey Mudd professor, nor do I know any Harvey Mudd professor who sits in the editorial board of a major scientific publication or is part of a technical committee in a major professional society. Also from personal experience, I'd tend to think that most bright, recently graduated PhDs who want to pursue a career in academia would rather go for a post-doc in a large research university (in the hope of later getting a tenure-track faculty position) than accept a teaching assignment in a small LAC (which many people would see as a career killer). But, again, my experience is limited and I'd be reckless to say that is always the case based on the restricted evidence I have. There may be for example exceptional scientists teaching at LACs whom I simply don't know.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
To give you a historical example, before the world wars, the most prestigious schools in the world were probably Oxford and Cambridge. To this day, they are probably the only 2 schools in the world that can match the draw of Harvard. Yet Oxford and Cambridge are both basically in the suburbs

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not exactly "in the suburbs". Actually, neither university has a closed campus, but rather are scattered around the cities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively. Many university buildings are in fact located in downtown (central) Oxford/Cambridge itself. Having said that, it is true that Cambridge (population approx. 125,000 ) and Oxford (population approx. 150,000) are, by American standards, fairly small cities (towns ?). That doesn't make them "suburbs" though (at least not in the sense the word "suburb" is used in England). As for London, one of the reasons some students choose not to go to school there is basically that London is one of the most expensive cities in Europe and probably in the world (kinda like living in certain neighborhoods in New York City perhaps ?).</p>

31

<p>Passionflower--</p>

<p>You really should attend a scholar's day at some point this Spring if you're seriuosly considering Rutgers. You will have the opportunity to meet deans, professors, and students in the subjects you're interested in and will get a better idea of what the school is like than from CC.</p>