I think that the 15% is the figure for colleges defines as “Baccalaureate” which covers a much larger range of colleges and universities, including colleges which are primarily 2 year but also have 4-year degrees, colleges which have a substantial number of graduate programs, that are entirely professional, the for-profits, and more.
LACs are, roughly, those non-profit colleges whose basic Carnegie classification is “Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts & Sciences Focus”, and some colleges whose Carnegie classification is " Baccalaureate Colleges: Diverse Fields" which still have a very strong arts and sciences element, and are not for religious training (not yeshivas, seminaries, etc). Modify those by the colleges being almost entirely residential and almost entirely full-time, and that have few or no graduate programs.
It’s a dilemma for which there is no quick fix. The brand, “LAC” has its cachet and there are small, selective, colleges with huge business focuses that find it extremely important to identify that way in order to attract students from wealthy families on both coasts: I give you, Claremont-McKenna and W&L (and probably a few others.) They get away with it because they are highly endowed and can afford the mass mailings replete with pretty pictures. And, who’s going to object? Certainly not USNews.
I don’t think that’s surprising at all. I majored in an A&S subject, but really enjoyed having the option to go to another college at my university (journalism, business) or even just taking a course at one. But I mostly enjoyed having friends who were studying other things and going to their presentations (engineering, dance, music) or just seeing the faces I didn’t see in class every day. My kids wanted small schools so we looked at a few, but it didn’t change my mind that I would have liked an LAC.
Do I think traditional LACs could be 5x bigger and still have the same draw? No. A few, like Williams, turn down many qualified applicants, but would those applicants want to go to a school that is 10000 students even with class size of 20, or live in dorm organized into a village, or have to walk 1/2 mile to a class? Can the applicants who are turned down (or don’t accept) afford a private LAC? Do we think there are tons of students who wanted to go to an LAC but were turned down from every one so ended up at a big university (and not because they couldn’t afford the LAC, because they couldn’t get accepted)? I don’t. I think those who want an LAC find one and there are enough students out there looking for an LAC and don’t care if it is 10k students big.
I think the consortium schools like Pomona or Amherst probably do it the best, having their small, traditional LAC but giving their students the opportunity to take a course or two at another school without giving up their traditional LAC.
Harvard College, founded in 1636, is the oldest institution of higher education in the United States. Harvard College offers a four-year undergraduate, liberal arts program for students seeking their first degree. There are about 6,600 undergraduates at the College, with nearly equal numbers of men and women. In addition to Harvard College, Harvard University includes 10 graduate and professional schools, all of which offer programs for students who already hold their first degrees and seek advanced training in their fields through master’s or doctoral programs. All 10 graduate and professional schools maintain their own admissions offices and teaching faculties, and they are run independently of Harvard College. For information about Harvard’s graduate programs, please contact these schools’ admissions offices directly.
You seem to conflate a liberal arts program and an LAC. Many non-LACs, including Harvard College, offer a liberal arts program. Harvard College has never called itself an LAC.
A liberal arts program is not a liberal arts college.
And why the fixation on Harvard- which has never in its centuries old history, defined itself as an LAC? It began as a clergy training program to meet the needs of the new “settlers” in the colonies.
Combined, the Claremont colleges could almost be like one school in terms of being almost a combined campus and social scene, with cross registration and convenient access to the other colleges. But that is still only about 6,000 undergraduates combined, not state flagship large.
The consortium with Amherst is somewhat less so, since the various colleges have distinct campuses and require some commuting to get between them. Also, one of the colleges is not considered a LAC.
Also, the Claremont colleges, with the possible exception of Pomona, were each designed to reflect a certain specialty - the arts, business, STEM - one of them is single-sex. Unlike the Massachusetts consortium, most of the Claremonts could not exist independently.
Perhaps not since they have structured themselves based on connections to the others, but small academically specialized schools for science / math / engineering, business, and arts do exist elsewhere, as do small women’s colleges.
I’m not sure this is accurate. With the exception of a few shared resources for convenience (library, health center) I think they do pretty much exist and operate independently. Yes, it is possible to take classes at other colleges, but it is not a necessity at any of the schools.
For example . .
CMC isn’t merely a “business” school. There 12 departments at CMC, and almost 40 majors (including Economics, but no “business” undergrad degree.) CMC is well known for economics, government, philosophy, etc.
Harvey Mudd offers only science, math, and engineering majors but it considers itself (and functions as) an independent LAC, and requires all the STEM students to take humanities courses (HMC has its own Humanities, Social Sciences, and Arts Department.)
I’m not even sure which is supposed to be the “Arts” school. Pitzer? Pomona?
If Pitzer, Scripps, or CMC were just a smidgen further away from each other- let’s say the 2 or 3 miles it takes to travel from Amherst to UMASS- they’d each have to scale up their own science facilities just in order to give their kids time to go from an English class to an organic chemistry class without taking a bus. I’m not saying the present arrangement isn’t ingenious in its way, but let’s stop pretending these are each independent LACs.
I’m a bit surprised by the (for lack of a better term) defensive tone in a lot of this thread so far. A well-structed question @ucbalumnus.
In theory, sure…you could grow Williams or Bowdoin or Swat to 10,000. Hire another professor for every 12 kids, build dorms, etc., but you’d lose some very important aspects (IMO).
Most of these schools are in places that have built up around them. Bowdoin couldn’t grow a great deal without a big disruption to Brunswick. The place would feel a lot different, and gone would be the romanticized notion of learning in a somewhat remote, more laid-back environment that is “conducive” to learning. It’s a feeling. It’s about knowing (or at least recognizing) more people than not. There is a sense of engagement, which probably scares as many kids as it attracts.
I think you could expand some of the well-known brands with low acceptance rates and keep the undergrad only, no research, no TA, professor lead residential college focus…but you’d lose the feel that these schools have.
With the undertone of exclusivity that permeates these boards, If Bowdoin went to 8,000 students, would the acceptance rate double? Triple? Change only a bit? Just as interesting…what would happen to Colby and Bates if they didn’t change when Bowdoin did?
(not meant to cause a Maine civil war…just using them for their proximity and general similarity)
First, I don’t think anyone is “pretending” anything. For instance, when you mischaracterized CMC as a business school and Pitzer (I assume?) as an art school, I just assumed you were misinformed, not “pretending.”
Second. the three schools aren’t miles apart, they are immediately adjacent, which is why it works for CMC, Pitzer, and Scripps to jointly operate a well respected science department at the intersection of the three schools. As to whether this joint arrangement means these three colleges aren’t really “independent LAC’s,” I guess that is a matter of definition and opinion.
For what it is worth, CMC is in the process of creating its own science department and facility. When it is completed, in your estimation, will it only be Pitzer and Scripps that aren’t independent LACs?
Harvey Mudd, CMC, & Pomona can easily operate as independent LACs, although each shares athletic team participation with at least one other school in the consortium.
An LAC consortium looks great on paper, but the reality can be different.
I didn’t know what you are talking about and I still don’t. I guessed Pitzer only by process of elimination, but still have no clue why you insist on mischaracterizing it as an art school. Care to explain?
