Brown compared to the top LAC's

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
21

<p>In the fields that I know, there are some strong researchers at LACs, but a very limited number. It is difficult for them to get a critical mass of researchers, to get big grants, etc. This does not mean that students at an LAC cannot get involved in research projects that prepare them well for graduate school, but the top researchers are unlikely to be there. Those who choose to go to LACs typically go there because they want to teach well and know that this will be a fair amount of work (or because they couldn't get a good enough job at a research university). At a research university, quality of teaching typically gets modest rewards if any whereas quantity/quality of education is highly rewarded. So, the people who go there preselect for an stronger emphasis on research and then the institutional incentives drive them further in that direction. Undergraduates who are able to get involved in the research can get in on cutting edge stuff. I did. But you may have to be more impressive to your professors to get involved than you would at an LAC because they don't have the grad students there.</p>

<p>I am sure there are some pockets in LACs with high quality research. There are certainly schools that produce a lot of undergraduates who go on to Ph.Ds. But if being on the cutting edge matters, you would likely not want to be at an LAC. In my case, I worked for one of the leading people in my field as a research assistant as an undergraduate and then he served as my thesis advisor. My undergraduate thesis was published in the leading journal in the field and in graduate school, I was told by one of the luminaries of the Harvard department that it would have been the best Ph.D. theses in the department at Harvard for the last 5-10 years. [This made getting through graduate school successfully a lot easier]. It would be very unlikely to have that experience at an LAC as I wouldn't have had access to the equivalent of my undergraduate adviser. </p>

<p>But, in my graduate school department, we had a very strong kid who had gone to Hampshire and really knew how to do research independently. He learned very well from a professor who was not a stellar researcher but was a good teacher. There are lots of ways to get a good education.</p>

22

<p>Like I said Princeton and Brown have the perfect balance between undergrad focus and research.</p>

23

<p>Besides which, not all research is science research. In those fields, the research university advantage is decidedly less, if not absent. Large grants to pay for equipment, labs, etc. are not necessary if one's research is on economic development in 19th century U.S. or Ezra Pound or Wittgenstein or the multiple meanings of nationhood.</p>

24

<p>Collegehopeful78:
Ah, "the perfect balance" -- Sorry, but I say not. These fine universities are not for everyone. There are many for whom they do not have the right atmosphere and are not the right fit.</p>

25

<p>Momfromme, you consistently ignore the majority of my post and attack assertions that I don't make.</p>

<p>If you want to support an amorphous grouping of "LACs" versus a specific school, Brown, go ahead and try. I've not put down any school or any experience anywhere here in this thread. All I've said is, Brown, by its nature, has the ability to offer an experience that, by in large, LACs cannot. This is evident if you simply spend a few moments on either campus. It's not all encompassing-- I mention scientific research and ONLY scientific research. I've even ACKNOWLEDGED that it's not as necessary to have these resources to do top Humanities and Social Science research, although in my experience, interacting with high level faculty members, an environment focused across the disciplines in research is what researchers desire. People who tend to be top researchers tend to prefer institutions that are guided towards fostering that research. LACs are after not research excellence but teaching excellence-- and there is a FANTASTIC ARGUMENT to be made that TEACHING is more important to undergraduates. I'm not making that argument either way.</p>

<p>The truth is, I am simply pointing out, as the OP requests, that the resources available at Brown for scientific research and the ability to support research endeavors are greater at a university where research is a major focus as opposed to a college which does not include research as a major focus. The burden does not lie on me to prove this statement-- go and look at an LAC webpage versus a research university webpage and you'll see from their own presentation, this imbalance exists. If you think that numbers are required, I challenge you to demonstrate that LACs on the whole, since we're referring to a large group not just one or two specific examples of LACs, can and do support the same level of research.</p>

<p>For instance, you can see the larger emphasis on athletics (being a D1 school) and research just based on Brown's homepage v. Hampshire's. Neither under academics nor under resources is the word "research". Research is 10% of the content on the Brown's main page.</p>

<p>Since these universities seem to openly, self-distinguish themselves this way, I challenge you to provide the information that suggests that the impression they themselves are selling is false. While, as you say, educated people would like data, I'll add that educated people can also draw conclusions without numbers that are reasonable and well supported. Data sets are far from the only type of evidence provided</p>

<p>No one anywhere on this thread said that Brown is the best school or fits for everyone, and in fact, very infrequently are examples specific to Brown, rather than general statements about Brown-like schools. No one attacked LACs, and no one said that they provide a worse undergraduate experience. They do, however, provide a different experience, and some of those differences are pointed out already in this thread.</p>

<p>You're zealously defending what no one is attacking.</p>

26

<p>Top 20 Institutions: Ph.D. Productivity Relative to Institutional Size, 1995-2004 </p>

<ol>
<li> California Institute of Technology </li>
<li> Harvey Mudd College </li>
<li> Swarthmore College </li>
<li> Reed College</li>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology </li>
<li> Carleton College</li>
<li> Oberlin College</li>
<li> Bryn Mawr College</li>
<li> University of Chicago</li>
<li>Grinnell College</li>
<li>Yale University</li>
<li>Princeton University</li>
<li>Haverford College</li>
<li>Pomona College</li>
<li>Rice University</li>
<li>Amherst College</li>
<li>Harvard University</li>
<li>St John's College (Annapolis, MD)</li>
<li>Williams College </li>
<li>Cleveland Institute of Music</li>
</ol>

<p>Modestmelody, it might be best to tone it down. The never ending LAC/university debate will not be resolved on these boards. But I’d use caution touting the seeming superiority of university research opportunities over LACs. If the goal of most undergraduate research is to prepare for graduate school, outcome data might argue otherwise. The above table reflects what is commonly accepted, that LACs are disproportionately represented (by about a 2:1 margin) in top PhD productivity pretty much across the board, even in the sciences that would appear to benefit so significantly from a resource rich university. </p>

<p>From collegenews.org:
“On a per capita basis, liberal arts colleges produce nearly twice as many students who earn a Ph.D. in science as other institutions. Liberal arts graduates also are disproportionately represented in the leadership of the nation’s scientific community. In a recent two-year period, nearly 20 percent of the scientists elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences received their undergraduate education at a liberal arts college.”</p>

<p>While I agree with your listed advantages of university-based research settings, you neglect to mention the advantages of LACs: 1:1 mentoring with full professors - Day 1 jumping into roles normally reserved for grad students - No earning your stripes cleaning glassware for a year - Recommendations, come grad/professional school application time, that are personal as personal can be. </p>

<p>I, for one, don’t believe there is any “winner” in this debate. While the paths might be somewhat different, any individual truly committed to a research based career would be able to find more than ample opportunities in both settings.</p>

27

<p>First off, PhD production describes the ambitions and desires of students. I have no surprised that those who are academically steered towards direct and pure learning that matches the LAC philosophy become PhDs-- obtaining a PhD and the jobs that lead to are just like the more pure, learning for the sake of learning, that happens at LACs. I'm not talking about PhD production, I'm talking about the actual resources available for the research expereinces, which are, on the whole, greater at a university that has and spends significant amounts on research.</p>

<p>Here is the issue I take with your post-- I'm not discussing LACs versus research universities, I'm discussing LACs versus Brown (and maybe this can be extended to several schools quite similar to Brown). I'm not talking about benefits of LACs because I simply wasn't going there-- I was describing what makes Brown stand apart because that's what I'm best qualified to discuss. The issue of Brown versus the LAC is that statements like, "earning your stripes cleaning glassware" is completely ignorant to the Brown way of research for undergraduates.</p>

<p>LACs versus all research universities is a different conversation. This discussion is what makes Brown different than an LAC, and I do believe that it is uniquely equipped to offer undergraduate science research with leaders in their field while also offering fantastic teaching and a personal experience.</p>

<p>At Brown, faculty members are awarded tenure 20% on university service, 40% on teaching, and 40% on research-- they're placed on equal footing. That's not the case of most research universities and that's not the case at most LACs.</p>

<p>Not only that, but it is an egregious error to claim that research is preparation for graduate school. That completely ignores the true value of research and essentially puts research on a similar footing to say, pre-professionalism. A pre-professional education is geared towards preparing someone directly for a profession. Are LACs offering an education that includes research only as a mean for direct preparation for a profession, but one in academia instead of the corporate or public sector?</p>

<p>Of course, that's ridiculous, I just hope you see that too and realize that saying research is for grad school prep and that the value of these experiences at various institutions can be measured by graduate school success is weak, if not completely false.</p>

28

<p>Hold up, not everyone has the same preferences? DAMN, who knew? momfromme that's fo' sho. That's probably why Modestmelody (Jason I think) is posting about the strengths of Brown, the school he knows stuff about, so he can offer information that people can weigh in with their personal criteria. He even alludes to the traditional strengths of LACs that he chooses to not elaborate on due to a lack of experience. It seems totally reasonable to me. I really don't understand how or why anyone ever gets into an argument with Jason; he never posts anything that is particularly controversial or offensive and he's always really helpful.</p>

<p>With regard to Ph.D productivity: way to be off the mark completely, wbwa. The percent of students that go on to get Ph.Ds is hardly indicative of research quality/opportunities. If anything, it shows exactly what Jason said: ambition and general philosophy of pursuing further education. "Relative to Institutional Size" seems to be something that helps LACs out, because they usually do not have recruited athletes (if they do, then certainly not on the scale of a D1 school, i.e. Brown) that might further tip the scales. If you really want to find some stats that show research opportunities then find something about undergraduate research papers published or % of students who are directly involved in research. Another measure might be graduate school placement (this of course also measures reputation and faculty connections). I recall one of those crazy silly rankings of “placement into the top 10 graduate schools” across med, business, and law. Brown was 14th there, if it helps those who love all completely objective studies that determine ultimate truth. So to answer the OPs question: Brown compared to everything = 14. Man Jason really should stop talking Brown up, it's only 14. That’s not even the top 13. Sucks.</p>

29

<p>"At Brown, faculty members are awarded tenure 20% on university service, 40% on teaching, and 40% on research-- they're placed on equal footing. That's not the case of most research universities and that's not the case at most LACs."</p>

<p>This IS the formula at top LACs.</p>

30

<p>Thanks Earl, that's exactly the way I feel I presented my case on here and the fact that I've been attacked on it is sort of astonishing to me. I guess I should know better and not get sucked into an argument when I wasn't making one. Btw, it is Jason.</p>

<p>Momfromme-- if that's the case, I highly doubt the standards on the kind of research a physical science professor is doing for his/her 40% can really be close. I'm sorry, but the fact of hte matter is, in the hard sciences, you need graduates students, lab space, and equipment that LACs don't offer and don't want to offer because that's not part of hteir educational philosophy. I'm encouraged, however, to know that Brown is placing the same emphasis on teaching that LACs are. I wish we would put even more emphasis than exists now (though I've come across fantastic teaching here. I just think the LACs have it 90% right and we have it 90% right, but a different 90%)...</p>

<p>I hope the OP, or someone without an agenda (myself included... I don't really have an agenda, but I have a pretty natural bias and unbalanced amount of information about one over the other) is reading this thread and gaining something from it, because if not, it's really quite pointless.</p>

<p>Momfromme, do you have a child at an LAC? If so, why do you feel the need to fervently defend LACs? They really do a great job of defending themselves, and weren't even being attacked...</p>

<p>Bah, why even bother writing paragraphs, I'll only get a response to one sentence that ignores the overall point of my post.</p>

31

<p>"Like I said Princeton and Brown have the perfect balance between undergrad focus and research."</p>

<p>They may have a good balance, but I definitely wouldn't put them at the top. Caltech, Yale and MIT have the most research per science student -- much more, even order of magnitude more, than Brown or Princeton -- and also smaller class sizes overall. </p>

<p>Brown is a fantastic school, but there are significant differences between it and the top LACs in terms of undergraduate program quality. Look at the numbers posted above about PhD productivity - there are a lot more studies that show similar things. There are other threads looking at this in depth though. Your best bet is to really do a lot of research talking with professors and students before coming to any conclusions about this. Also keep in mind that a lot of it is about YOU, not how good your program is. You can go to a mediocre state school and if it's the right program for you, still be a star.</p>

32

<p>Ah yes, but a student at Caltech or MIT wouldn't have much access to humanities courses or students of that bent! Therein lies the fault in tech universities.</p>

<p>I think it's time the LAC vs. university debate became somewhat moot. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, both are for different types of people. Go figure which one you would prefer.</p>

<p>(I, if I may say so, am I Brown fan)</p>

33

<p>PosterX, you've always been hyper-critical of my postings here, and though you didn't respond to any of my comments, I wonder, do you think anything I said presented the information in any way other than how Earl described it? Am I going nuts or getting trolled?</p>

34

<p>Great post, tetrisfan - I completely agree.</p>

35

<p>modestmelody, people sometimes have a vested interested in holding a particular belief and don't like to feel that it is being challenged. I don't see anything controversial in what you are saying. If I understand you correctly, the balance that you are describing is different than the proportion of science research activity per undergraduate, which posterx focused on. That balance is between having world class research faculty and a institutional focus on undergraduates. There is nothing in your overall statement that needs to focus on science, and can include math, economics, political science, psychology, sociology, etc. (I'm not really sure what goes on in humanities research so I can't comment on faculty quality or undergraduate involvement in their research.) </p>

<p>No LAC that I know of has a world class research faculty (though there are occasional stars here and there), but they have an institutional focus on undergraduates. Most universities which have world class research faculties, including Harvard where I taught, do not have an institutional focus on undergraduates. [That does not mean, incidentally, that graduate students cannot get involved in research, but they have to be directed and proactive to do so]. Princeton does indeed have a world class faculty in many areas and an institutional focus on undergraduates. Brown has a very good research faculty with some world class pockets and a focus on undergraduates (and if understand it correctly, a flexible undergraduate program that lets undergraduates structure their curriculum to enable them to get into research fairly early if they so choose).</p>

<p>I don't know Caltech particularly. MIT clearly has a world class faculty, although it has not been aggressive in growing and changing in the last 10 years, and is not undergraduate-focused. However, a friend who is a luminary scientist there, says that every professor's door (including his) is open to undergraduates who want to talk (or at least they answer the emails they get from undergraduates who have ideas they want to discuss). </p>

<p>As I said in an earlier post, LACs attract faculty who want to make careers teaching. With exceptions, they don't get the research stars and lo and behold, their faculties are not world class research faculties. That's not a knock. That's what the institution has chosen to be. If what you say is threatening or disturbing to others in this regard, I don't think you should worry about it.</p>

<p>What neither you nor I are saying is that you can't get an excellent education at an LAC, a research university, or a hybrid like Brown. You can. But, the opportunities each offers will be somewhat different. There's no right or wrong. It's just a value judgment about what would be best for you.</p>

36

<p>Thanks shawbridge-- normally I don't care what other people think about what I'm saying, but I felt like I was just going a bit crazy here either misreading everyone's posts or writing poorly and completely misrepresenting the points I was trying to make. You've said everything I've been trying to say but more succinctly. I appreciate it.</p>

37

<p>modestmelody,
I'm very sorry that you feel attacked. Really. As far as I see it, I am trying to engage in a discussion about different sorts of institutions. I'm sure you engage in discussions where people differ with you - and that's all that I'm doing. Electronic communication makes it hard to convey tone, so please know that I am writing with a smile and an open mind and heart.</p>

38

<p>It's not so much attacked as though I feel like we've been having two conversations that are completely separate and barely skidding off each other. I feel like I've been trying to engage in what you're saying, but then the subject gets changed or drastically skewed to something orthogonal to what's already been said.</p>

<p>No worries, I've just been spinning a bit, not sleeping enough, and working too hard this week.</p>

39

<p>"institutional focus on undergraduates"</p>

<p>This is best measured by COHE SSE figures (student service expenditure), which have not been recently published, but have Caltech, Yale, and Princeton as the top three (in that order) among "Class I" major research institutions. In terms of such expenditures, which measure how much the universities spend on advising, tutoring, teaching and other things directly related to undergraduate life, these three universities rank above most of the top LACs as well. Places like Penn, Harvard, Cornell, spend much less, sometimes less than 1/4 what Caltech or Yale do, per student. In the last data release, there were just a tiny handful of small colleges that spent more than Caltech per student - Swarthmore, Grinnell and a couple others.</p>

40

<p>To elaborate regarding your comments on "institutional focus on undergraduates":</p>

<p>Although this is certainly a qualitative item, not just a quantitative one, this type of "focus" is perhaps best measured by COHE SSE figures (student service expenditure), which have not been recently published, but in the last release had Caltech, Yale, and Princeton as the top three (in that order) universities among "Class I" major research institutions. Gary Glen Price, a prominent education professor dealing with university measurement, has written extensively about them. </p>

<p>SSE expenditures measure how much the universities spend on advising, tutoring, teaching and other things directly related to undergraduate life, and these three top research universities spend more on them than most of the top LACs as well. Places like Penn, Harvard, Cornell, spend much less, sometimes less than 1/4 what Caltech/Yale do, per student. In the last data release, there were just a tiny handful of small colleges that spent more than Caltech per student - Swarthmore, Grinnell and a couple others.</p>

<p>Anyhow, it's just another thing to consider. You have to look beyond the rhetoric of who "focuses on undergraduates" - a lot of places claim to do that in their marketing materials just because they aren't particularly good at other things, and need to establish a "brand" identity. Just because a university is large and is one of the leading research institutions in the world doesn't at all mean it doesn't focus on undergraduates. According to ISI/Sciencewatch, the top research institutions in the world are Caltech, Harvard and Yale, and I think that many would argue that Caltech and Yale have the best undergraduate science programs in the United States.</p>