<p>Hey I was wondering how strong the biology department at Amherst was compared to larger universities. I plan on majoring in biology and was accepted to Cornell university-Arts and Sciences which I know has a very strong bio department but I was also accepted to Amherst which I absolutely love. I stayed over Amherst last week and attended one of the bio classes and thought it was pretty good but obviously that was just one course which is too small of a sample to draw a conclusion from. Any input is greatly appreciated becuase choosing between these two schools that I was fortunate to be accepted by is an extremely difficult choice. Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>Interesting article posted by another member:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf[/url]”>http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf</a></p>
<p>My D is deciding between a few LACs (Amherst, Haverford, Colby) and is also planning on studying Biology. The above article makes the case that the top LACs turn out more PhDs per 100 students than many of the large research universities. In any event, I am also interested in others’ perspectives on sciences at Amherst.</p>
<p>My D is a sophomore at amherst in biology. Her choice was between Brown, Cornell and Amhest. It was a difficult decision for her since she felt that Cornell offered more variety in biology. She is not sorry she chose Amherst. She has had great biology teachers, and loves the small classes and the access to professors. (She is also a schumpf scholar which gave her the opportunity to do research starting Jan. her first year.)</p>
<p>“…the top LACs turn out more PhDs per 100 students than many of the large research universities.”</p>
<p>Consider that research universities frequently do not consist solely of liberal arts colleges, and consequently do not admit the same proportion of students who come into them in the first place interested in eventually getting biology PhDs. And some of them have highly capable student bodies, a higher proportion or whom may choose other paths: MD, DDS, veterinarian- in preference to PhD.</p>
<p>That in no way means, in and of itself, that those students who go to comprehensive universities and actually want biology PhDs are in any way disadvantaged in their pursuits. Actually, often such students will find greater course selection in biology, more sub-areas represented to explore, should one become interested in such, more research areas available, more pre-eminent professors. Generally, during a given period, many individuals from a given university will have gone on to biology PhDs, actually considerably more than from many of the liberal arts colleges that have higher %, thereby demonstrating that such goals are not only accessible from the larger school, but occur more often. And those students from the larger school who choose that route often probably have more to choose from there in that field.</p>
<p>Suggest look at the courses actually being offered in Bilology, at various colleges of interest. Look at the Registrar’s list of courses actually being given in the most recent Spring and Fall semesters, not merely the catalog. Then try to find a list of the gross number of future PhDs produced from a given institution, not the percent. Together, these two factors might be more highly illuminative as to which schools are actually stronger in biology. As opposed to which schools are small and have the least diverse student body.</p>
<p>The problem with the % measure is that the denominator used is the entire student population at an institution, not the number of capable individuals there who actually want to pursue a Biology PhD. Moreover, it does not measure anything actually about the Biology departments at these schools (courses, professors, research, etc).</p>
<p>The % measure may be somewhat descriptive of average student predipositions in that regard coming in. However, individuals are not averages, and many- I daresay the vast majority of- future PhDs, seem to choose institutions that offer greater resources available to them once they reach their upperclass years, not fewer resources. Despite the irrelevancy that not all of their fellow students there will be treading the identical path.</p>
<p>While I agree with monydad in the theory that those seeking PhD’s might choose larger research universities to start off, I think there is also an inherent disadvantage to the undergrad in this situation. Your pre-eminet professors are likely doing their own research, they oversee lecture halls and leave the “teaching” to their grad students (who’d also rather be doing their own research). The professors knew neither my name or even my face. </p>
<p>However, I agree very much with looking at the depth and breadth of courses available in a given semester at a smaller LAC, plus I think if you hope to be an engaged and hands-on student, you’ll also look into the class size, even in intro classes. I had a bio class at what is considered a research university with well over 300 in the lecture where the “blackboard” was a huge movie screen off an overhead projector (computers now) and there were at least 25 recitations taught by the TAs. Not exactly a personalized education by any stretch of the imagination, but those multiple choice exams made getting a decent grade fairly easy, both a good and bad thing when it comes to actual learning and engaging. </p>
<p>You also might want to ask about opportunities for doing your own research and funded research perhaps over the summer. When it comes to undergraduate education, I think it is more important to get your feet wet, learn the process and critical thinking skills necessary in doing research instead of primarily being someone’s minion for four years. Of course, to each his own and there is surely an advantage to bearing witness to what may be very important outcomes. There are definitely benefits to both and I think the statistics of how many go on to PhD’s from LAC’s is just a way to say that it happens more often from the LAC than one might consider.</p>