<p>My daughter has been accepted to her top three choices: Carleton, Georgetown and Northwestern and is deciding which one is a best fit.
She loved the people and atmosphere at Carleton but doesn't know if she will wish she was not so isolated a few years down the road.
She is interested in political science as well as science and thought she might be able to combine into some sort of major such as society, science and technology, although she really does not know for sure what direction she will go. Within all three schools she has applied to the liberal arts college so she can explore and figure out what she will major in.
Georgetown is in DC which is very exciting to her and the campus offers more diversity.
Northwestern also offers great opportunities just 12 miles from downtown Chicago.
Any thoughts to help her make her decision.</p>
<p>I teach at Northwestern and my daughter goes to Carleton and I offer these observations. In general, Northwestern are there to get a degree and a good job. (Who can blame them?) However, I cringe each term as I hear the inevitable question from at least 10 students: "What do I have to do to get an A?" Ouch. In addition, a large number of them come from affluent families and that is definitely reflected in the cars they drive around campus, the clothes they wear, and so on. Although I think highly of many of my students, I sense that Carleton students are often of a different breed. They tend to be lifelong-learners who are at Carleton to become "whole" and broaden their life experience and knowledge rather than zero in narrowly on a specific career. If your daughter is interested in the sciences, she would be wise to go to Carleton. My daughter has thrived in its collaborative learning classroom and lab environment. I doubt that she would have had as rich of an experience at Northwestern.</p>
<p>Sorry: Second sentence should read: In general, Northwestern students are there to get.....</p>
<p>carlmom,</p>
<p>That's why significantly higher fraction of LACs students go on to pursue PhDs. But at the same time, research universities have larger resources (although one may argue LACs have larger resource on per capita basis, ignoring economy of scale). While Carleton has more collaborative learning classroom and lab environment, there are more cutting-edge research opportunities found at NU (NU is one of the leading nano-tech research centers in the nation). Reserach U are generally more well-known than the "peer" LACs and that's what the more preprofessional types care. Each has its strength and weakness.</p>
<p>I am sorry to report that I would beg to differ that there would be more "cutting-edge" science research opportunities for undergrads at Northwestern. This is a hard to dispel myth but a myth nonetheless. Further, the vast majority of hard-sciences graduates must to graduate school in order to procure a well-paying, intellectually interesting job with advancement possibilities--in other words, a job that would earn them the title "professional."</p>
<p>I am not gonna argue with you. Undergrads are involved in nano-tech research at NU. There's even a website for it. But if you think LACs win in everything, so be it.</p>
<p>Sorry, my cousins got to work with the Cyclotron at MSU, which is something they never could have done at any LAC. Now admittedly, they were both in the top end of MSU students, so they got first dibs, but Research U certainly can beat LAC's.</p>
<p>I personally am looking at both, and like a lot of things about both types.</p>
<p>carlmom--you most definitely do NOT teach at Northwestern. LMAO.</p>
<p>igotabiggy-charming name by the way, how do you know anything about carlmom or where she teaches?</p>
<p>I suppose I am in a somewhat unusual position to speak to your question as someone who has been connected to all three institutions. I hope I can be of some help.</p>
<p>The sciences are exceptionally strong at both Carleton and Northwestern (see <a href="http://apps.carleton.edu/news/assets/10242_Web.pdf)%5B/url%5D">http://apps.carleton.edu/news/assets/10242_Web.pdf)</a>. They are generally weaker at Georgetown taking a back seat to the social sciences/humanities. While all three schools will provide similarly solid poli sci undergraduate classroom experiences, Washington obviously offers unique opportunities to pursue internships or part-time work with the multitude of political offices, lobbyists, non-profit organizations, etc. that call DC home. Georgetown does suffer, somewhat, from its relatively weak endowment that contributes to a larger student/faculty ratio, larger class sizes, and the use of part-time faculty (often with great practical experience that may translate poorly into teaching acumen).</p>
<p>Carleton is certainly much more isolated than Georgetown’s stone’s throw to Wisconsin and M or NU’s 20 minute El ride to Wrigley, but Minneapolis/SP are only 35 miles away. The school’s unusual location offers both isolation and access on demand. This promotes the great camaraderie/school spirit found on campus and avoids the “cabin fever” sometimes found at northeastern LACs distant from major metropolitan areas. Students at Carleton also take great advantage of study abroad (about ¾ participate) in part due to the remarkable strength of school-sponsored offerings (Cambridge economics, political economy in Beijing, environmental studies in Australia, etc.). Of particular interest to your daughter, Carleton even sponsors its own Washington DC program for winter term (see <a href="http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ocs/dc/)%5B/url%5D">http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ocs/dc/)</a>.</p>
<p>With regard to the Sam Lee/Carlmon/DSC disagreement about research – Northwestern has one of the world’s top, truly cutting edge, programs in nanotechnology. Other engineering programs are, overall, superb. While the sciences are also all strong, chemistry is remarkably so. Despite this, the ability to participate in research one-on-one with full professors without competing with graduate students or having them serve as a primary mentor is one obvious advantage to the LAC experience. Graduate programs understand that the primary purpose of undergraduate research is to allow students to get a taste of their future and get their feet wet with regard to the specifics of project planning, the physical lab experience, and writing/publication. There is little expectation that they will discover the next buckyball. Should your daughter, or any prospective student, be unusually precocious and already far advanced with regard to both college level scientific coursework and lab experience, I would agree that a top-tier, large university setting would be the way to go. If she is a mere mortal, I don’t believe there is a clear “winner.” NU and Carleton will both provide excellent, but very different, opportunities.</p>
<p>Three great schools offering unique cultures and experiences – I would suggest your daughter might be best served just following her best instincts and her heart.</p>
<p>Three great schools, three very different atmospheres. Definitely a personal choice. Carls can take a bus to the cities if they want to have that metropolitan experience.</p>
<p>I would check "access" to (insert courses/research opportunities/specific teachers)before making a decision. For example, my son, who is a Poli Sci major with a lot of Philo discovered that at U Chicago he would have to be a graduate student to access some of the courses he really wanted. Likewise, some schools have limited space in specific programs. A school may have an outstanding program in a certain area, but not enough room to accommodate everyone who would like to be in it.</p>
<p>Send Maize and Blue a pm. Her daughter will be doing a research study this summer--paid and with stipend--an opportunity that was offered at Carleton.</p>
<p>Biology program in Carleton is not strong (especially molecular/cellular biology). Research opportunities for students who major in biology are very limited.</p>
<p>This opportunity came up in the Chemistry department. The student opted for the Carleton research project, over those she applied to and received at other universities. She will be going to Europe and getting a stipend, and I don't feel comfortable revealing too much more since it is Maize & Blue's child and not mine. I think opportunities are limited most places, and go-getters manage to dig them up regardless of where they attend.</p>
<p>The project relates to this:</p>
<p>Carleton has a "time-of-flight laser mass spectrometer" (one of about 30 in the world)</p>
<p>taxastaximom,</p>
<p>I think there's also intrinsic difference in terms of the type of project students can get at LACs vs research U and that's why saying one is clearly better than another is ridiculous. The faculty at research U has a team of graduate students who are also very capable. And the research projects are usually of a larger scale and significance (the LACs just don't have fed funding to build cutting edge research centers like nanotech). If you read science journals, most papers there are published by faculty (along with their grad students) from research U. Names from LACs show up significantly less (in fact, I can't even recall any though I was reading more engineering papers rather than pure science ones). And those that have made great contribution to projects led by leading researchers in the field (much more often found at top research U than top LACs as far as science goes) are gonna get recommendation that carry a lot of weight for grad school application. </p>
<p>On the other hand, since the project is of smaller scale and the profs don't really have a team of graduate students at LACs, a college student can be the main resource the profs rely on. Whereas at the research U, often undergrads get the less important piece to work on, at least at the beginning. Some even just started out doing silly things like washing dishes for grad students. Though the good ones who are willing to comit the time and have talents will have an increasingly important role as time passes. But that doesn't happen to everybody, at least not the very average ones. This is a bit akin to working in a small and big companies to me. Both have its pros and cons.</p>
<p>I don't believe I said one was better than the other. I went to a big Uni, my kids have chosen differently.</p>
<p>I do get tired of "big U" people coming over to slam the LACs however. Like it or not, there is merit to going to an LAC and research opportunities can be found there, or while there. I just wish people that felt Big Uni was all that would just stay over on those boards and pat themselves on the back for their wonderful projects and soon to be fame. I don't feel the need to go over there and talk about how great LACs are. It's almost a sour grapes mentality sometimes, don't you think? Tear down what you didn't select.</p>
<p>Even if the lure of the "big project" is great, not everyone that goes to Big Uni is going to be selected for that, either. I wish students could find other ways to validate their choices for higher education than one upping each other with "I'm on a bigger project than you" or "I'm working with more famous people than you." </p>
<p>I wish more students would approach things as you do, taking note of the pros and cons of each, not just where they think they will make the most money, work on the biggest project, or have the best chance at the Nobel prize.</p>
<p>taxastaximom,</p>
<p>sorry, i didn't mean to say you said that. i was just saying anyone who did so. sorry about the confusion. :)</p>
<p>I know because she cannot speak English and because a professor at a school would not sell the school short. If I worked at Stanford, for example, I would not talk about the amazing opportunities at Harvard and Yale...I would sell Stanford because that is where I work.</p>
<p>That's an extremely naive sentiment, igotabiggy. Employees often have "bad" things to say about their employers--the kind of company loyalty that you trumpet exists, but it is not necessary. Even those who absolutely, positively adore their jobs and their employers need not have their heads in the sand--no company or institution is perfect, and to claim that it is is transparent loyalty. Not to mention the fact that every company/institution has workers with an axe to grind, unfairly or no (please note that I am not suggesting that this is carlmom...I'm just saying). </p>
<p>Plus, last time I checked, Northwestern didn't dry up and blow away when I didn't apply this year, and it won't dry up and blow away next year if someone reads carlmom's posts and decides that it's not right for them. I don't really think Northwestern needs anyone, including their professors, to push Northwestern to a ridiculous degree at all times. </p>
<p>P.S. I also found nothing wrong with carlmom's command of the English language!! Everybody drops or misspells a word or two every once in a while.</p>
<p>igb, in addition to courtesy, your stance leaves out an important element: critical thinking. Blind loyalty serves no one, least of all the employee's instititution. As advantagious points out, Northwestern doesn't need any cheerleaders, especially since they had a 21% increase in apps this year. And I imagine that they really don't want their yield to include students who will transfer out a year later because NW wasn't a good fit.</p>
<p>This is a stupid argument and is barely related to what the OP wanted. The OP's daughter was interested in political science and science, but generally pretty undecided. To start going on about nanotech research and cyclotrons and whatnot is pointless, I mean, we're talking about a high school senior who doesn't really know what she wants but I'm going to guess that she's not hellbent on playing a small role in cutting edge research. Come on, most students in science programs at the big research universities aren't doing cutting edge research, it's not like every bio major at Northwestern is working on a groundbreaking project or anything, have some perspective. Most science majors at big research schools are not exactly doing anything at their school that they couldn't do at Carleton. Carleton offers some research opportunities, Northwestern certainly offers more, but you're not forced to do research at the institution you attend anyway. There are lots of summer REU opportunities around the country at institutions big and small. And I'd like to say again that this is all pretty irrelevant for someone who might not even do much with science in college anyway, and might go on more of a political science track. Academically, the OP won't lose out on much by choosing any one of the three schools over the others (though G-town obviously is strong in poli sci opportunities, relatively weak in science). What's going to matter more is how happy the daughter is with the rest of the aspects of going to those schools.</p>