Concerns about LACs

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I've always had my mind set on going to a big university like UMich or Michigan State, but I have recently started looking into LACs and they are a bit intriguing. Some LACs have gorgeous campuses that I really love and I like the smaller classroom sizes compared to universities. However I have some concerns:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Will I be forced to take a bunch of humanities courses on things I don't care about? I plan to study physics and really don't enjoy analyzing poetry and similar things. I find some humanities interesting, but most of them are boring to me.</p></li>
<li><p>I've read that undergraduate research is easier to get into at LACs, but is it at the same quality that I would experience at a large university? Also, how can I tell if an LAC will have solid physics research taking place at the school?</p></li>
<li><p>How will an education in the sciences at an LAC compare to one from a big university?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I fell like I am missing one more question. If I think of it I'll be sure to post it here.</p>

<p>Thanks for any help anyone can offer me!</p>

2

<p>1) Look at liberal arts colleges with open curriculums/limited distribution requirements (not literature/humanities but perhaps writing courses; I really don’t care much about humanities either but I have to take a yearlong survey course in humanities – it’s really not that bad, and you don’t find any serious poetry analysis in it)</p>

<p>2) ‘but is it at the same quality that I would experience at a large university?’ no. </p>

<p>‘how can I tell if an LAC will have solid physics research taking place at the school?’ there probably isn’t, but there are many LACs that are distinguished for their physics programs, including Wesleyan, Reed, Lawrence and Williams. A serious physicist will usually get a PhD, and these schools are known for preparing students well to undertake physics PhDs.</p>

3

<h1>1: Breadth or general education requirements vary among LACs, just as they do at big universities. For example, Harvey Mudd has extensive breadth requirements, while Amherst has none.</h1>

<h1>2 and #3: Assuming you are looking specifically for physics, you can start by comparing the course offerings and curricula to that of schools known to be good for physics. Be sure to look at both the catalogs and schedules to see how frequently each course is offered. A school that offers the junior/senior level physics courses on a regular basis (at least yearly for most courses) is likely to have a larger and stronger physics department than one where the core junior/senior courses are offered every other year or less frequently. Once you have the list of schools screened by the course offerings, you can then look into research activity, but that may be a harder task. Not sure if they are willing to answer, but perhaps try asking some physics PhD programs about each school’s undergraduate physics preparation for PhD students. There may also be physics-specific forums to ask.</h1>

<p>The usual junior/senior physics courses are: advanced mechanics, quantum mechanics (may be a two semester sequence), electromagnetism and optics (may be a two semester sequence), statistical and thermal physics, and advanced physics lab (may be a two semester sequence).</p>

<p>Harvey Mudd, Oberlin, and Reed seem to be commonly mentioned LACs for physics.</p>

4

<p>I think you have to understand that LACs can vary widely in educational rigor, academic specialty, course requirements and, most importantly, in personality or character. One answer (other than “it depends”) doesn’t stand for all LACs; you have to explore individual schools.</p>

<ol>
<li>Some LACs have distribution requirements which means, roughly, that they require you to take two or three courses from each of three general categories – humanities, social sciences and math/sciences. My understanding is that many large universities (including UMich) also have distribution requirements, so read the fine print.</li>
</ol>

<p>Humanities is a fairly large classification encompassing literature, yes, but also art, art history, foreign languages, music, theater, religion. </p>

<p>Some LACs have no distribution requirements: you can take whatever you want, but you still may have to fulfill specific requirements like foreign language competence, courses that are writing intensive or that involve cultural diversity or quantitative reasoning.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Spend some time on the college’s physics department website. Usually colleges that have strong physics offerings will indicate the type of research that students are involved in. They will often post what alums went on to do after graduating. Do a search on this site for physics+LAC. The question comes up regularly.</p></li>
<li><p>Some LACs have excellent science/math departments, on a par with large universities. Some do not. Again, you have to research each individually.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I’m a graduate of UMich and my son of Williams College. We both benefited from excellent educations but our experiences – academically and socially – couldn’t have been more different. You have to think about which environment is the best fit for you. </p>

<p>PS, Williams is a good starting place to reasearch LAC+strong physics.</p>

5

<p>I have heard a lot of discussions from true researchers and engineers that have discussed the pros and cons of a research school vs a liberal arts school. Here are some of them…</p>

<p>Research schools can provide greater research opportunities. However, the undergraduate research opportunities are often limited even at these schools until you’re in more advanced courses so it can depend on how many AP courses you enter with and what math and science courses you will be placed in your first year. A lot of the liberal arts students will also seek out summer research options and the liberal arts schools are motivated to find placements for them to show that they are able to compete. So sometimes the liberal arts schools will require you spending your summer somewhere else and if you like the idea of going somewhere else it can be appealing but if you want to spend your summer at the same place (which can be nice if you’re paying for a house off campus either way) then you may see an advantage in a research school.</p>

<p>What do you intend to do after you graduate? The liberal arts schools have as strong, if not better, placements in PhD programs so if you’re really looking to work in research this can be an option. However, if you want to go to work right out of the gate then the research schools can have better placement at more desirable jobs than hard science majors at liberal arts schools.</p>

<p>But there has often been talk about the long term career options for the two. The liberal arts students are often the ones that do a better job of landing research dollars or working with stakeholders (as engineers). The difference is that they have spent a little more time interacting with different people in the liberal arts and understanding how to communicate better while the research students were, for lack of a better way to say it, hidden away with just the science students.</p>

<p>It really depends on what you want out of your college life and development. There is no one that is inherently better than the other. While a research focused school can sometimes offer a better starting salary, it also has lead to scientists that have struggled because they don’t know how to effectively communicate with non-science people whom they depend on for funding.</p>

<p>I think of Douglas Prasher. If you are not aware of his story you should look it up. He is one of the more well know because of what he missed out on but there are many that have a similar path. Long story short: He was a researcher that was making great progress and was on the verge of having his hypothesis realized through research. But he lost funding for his research. When his research ended he turned it over to a few researchers at other institutions who were interested in what he was doing. One day while Prasher was working driving the shuttle van for a car dealership he heard that the researchers he gave his research to had won the Nobel prize for the research he started. Looking back on it he said that it was because he was too focused on the research and didn’t think about how to network or communicate effectively to get people to support what he was doing.</p>

<p>There are people that are very successful going to research schools and people that are very successful going to liberal arts schools. There are also people that end up struggling from each. It is a matter of finding what you need. The school that is best for one person might not be the best for another person. Only you will know which school is right for you.</p>

<p>Edit to add link: <a href=“http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/30-how-bad-luck-networking-cost-prasher-nobel”>http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/30-how-bad-luck-networking-cost-prasher-nobel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

6

<p>It would be a stretch to claim that if Prasher had attended a LAC (if he did not attend one; there is no public mention of what undergraduate school he attended before PhD study at The Ohio State University), he would have secured funding to complete the research.</p>

7

<p>

College is not just a time to push forward with vocational instruction and formation but also, ideally, a time to grow and think about how to live your life. At any good LAC you can find humanities courses that go well beyond “analyzing poetry” toward asking and possibly answering questions about life. An LAC might be a great alternative to a Research U. for you. If you give those humanities courses a chance you might be surprised what they offer.</p>

8

<p>Note, however, that you can explore the humanities at a research university as well as at a LAC.</p>

9

<p>I was not saying it would have changed for him but just that he admitted he lacked that skill and I have known many people who have spoke about how LAC students have done a better job working with stakeholders. It really depends on the duties of the jobs. </p>

<p>One of my brothers is not as strong with stakeholders (he went to Johns Hopkins and double majored in Physics and Chemistry). As a result, he has never worked in a job that has required him to spend too much time with stakeholders justifying his work or required collaboration. </p>

<p>I have another brother who was a transfer to a Clarkson University, a smaller but well respected engineering school, after taking three years of liberal arts (and sciences) . But due to his skills working with stakeholders he is no longer in engineering but rather in management at a company that is highly desired destination for mechanical engineers. He admits that he was not the strongest engineer but that he has many skills that engineers don’t have that made him a great fit for his management position. </p>

<p>It kind of reminds me of the article by Dilbert creator Scott Adams: <a href=“How to Get a Real Education at College - WSJ”>http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704101604576247143383496656&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>A lot of the innovation comes as a result of connecting different disciplines. This is where a liberal arts education can be valuable. </p>

<p>Edit: I actually was thinking that Steven Levitt said a similar thing. It was his dad’s advice that lead to his success when he admitted that he wasn’t a good economist. So he took economics to the average person with Freakenomics and became one of the most popular economist by studying the things that ‘no respected economist would bother with’ and it is his ability to connect different disciplines that has made his contentions so interesting to people.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps his blue-collar family background was more relevant. Although the factory jobs at the time paid respectable levels of pay, the social class distinctions in how people interact may be more of a barrier for someone from a blue-collar family background trying to interact with grantors from upper-class backgrounds. Wasn’t there one study where it was found that attending an elite school (whether LAC or university) was most helpful for lower-SES students in giving them practice with interaction with those from upper-class backgrounds who predominate in many of the “good” jobs?</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Very true, but it does show that no matter where you go, the networking is just as important as the science. That, more than anything, is why degrees from certain schools are worth more than other degrees. Do you learn more at Harvard or Wharton or Williams? Probably not by any measurable quantity, but who you learn with and the networks you start to build are what are invaluable, if you take advantage of the opportunities.</p>

12

<p>Look into the specific requirements at some of the schools you are considering – for instance, at Wisconsin, students in College of Letters & Science (where a physics major would be), have to have 12 credits each in Humanities, Social Science and Natural/Biological/Physical Science. Students can meet some of those with AP/IB credits. I would imagine Michigan has similar requirements. I am not aware of large research schools which have an “open” curriculum - where there are no breadth (sometimes called gen ed) requirements, though someone correct me if I am wrong (I realize Brown has an open curriculum, but the OP asked about schools like Michigan etc). </p>

<p>There are LACs - Amherst, Grinnell, Hamilton, Vassar, which have an open curriculum, without gen ed requirements. </p>

<p>Good advice above about comparing course offerings – at large and small. And there is plenty to read on CC comparing research opportunities for undergrads at LACs vs. research powerhouses. </p>

<p>These are good questions to be asking yourself, good luck with your search. </p>

13

<p>Let’s assume the blue collar background was relevant. </p>

<p>Which school would have better helped Prasher develop the ability to overcome his limited non-factory interactions to help him interact with academic administrators, foundations, and bureaucrats better? Would it be the one where he spent the bulk of his time in the lab focused on research or one that required he interacting with humanities students?</p>

<p>The interesting thing is that in entry level research a lot of the duties are more in line with factory work as you’re not often thought of being part of the brain trust so the duties of mundane custodial duties like cleaning beakers or other grunt work is delegated to you…</p>

<p>(For the record: Prasher’s undergraduate study was also at Ohio State)</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>Grinnell, Hamilton, and Vassar effectively have breadth requirements, in limiting the number of courses of credits from a single department or one’s major that one can apply to the degree requirements.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The implication of this question is that you suggest that a school with breadth requirements (like most schools, including Ohio State, if that is where he actually went for undergraduate) would be preferable to an open curriculum school (like Amherst or Brown). That is not dependent on whether the school is classified as a LAC or a research university.</p>

<p>Now, others would argue that an elite school would have acculturated him better to interact with those of upper-class backgrounds, like those dispensing grant money. But, again, that is not dependent on whether the school is classified as a LAC or research university.</p>

15

<p>I currently attend Michigan State University and I’m in the Honors College, so I’m going to do my best to keep my opinion non-biased :slight_smile: If you are qualified for the Honors College here at MSU, then you will have no trouble getting involved with UNDERGRADUATE research (especially in the natural sciences). Also, as an HC student you get first choice on most classes when building your schedule, you get out of many college pre-requisite classes/graduation requirement classes, you get many more extra-curricular opportunities, you get Honors classes that have a more rigorous atmosphere, and you get more research/internship opportunities/invites! Also, if you achieve at least a 33 ACT composite (or equivalent SAT score) and graduate within the top 5% of your high school class, then you will be invited to work side-by-side with a professor on research… and get paid! That is not the case at UMich. I am not saying that because I bleed green; I am saying that because I know people who go to UMich, and their school has an unfortunate reputation for being overly competitive, which makes research opportunities for undergrads that much more difficult to obtain. MSU is a research university, and that title is rightly deserved. Also, since you want to major in physics, then MSU has a wonderful program! I myself am an astrophysics major, and being on the same campus as the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, as well as watching the construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (another particle accelerator!!!) is so amazing! MSU is ranked in the top 30 schools in the nation for graduate study in physics, and is the #1 school (yes, over MIT, Harvard, CalTech, Yale, UChicago, etc.) in the nation for graduate study in nuclear physics! UMich is a great school, however, as an undergraduate, you don’t get as much attention as you deserve, and they are more known for law, pre-med, engineering, business, etc., rather than the natural sciences. </p>

<p>Also, MSU’s campus is absolutely amazing! It practically IS the city of East Lansing. UMich is intertwined with the city of Ann Arbor, which makes things kind of congested and uncomfortable, but that is just my opinion. MSU is like a huge park— with beautiful trees all around campus, the Red Cedar river right through the middle, and trails intermingled with it all! The architecture is mixed with 1800-early 1900s buildings to the north, mid-1900s buildings to the south and east, and 2000s to the northwest! Walking through campus is truly a blast through the past! To top it off, the many businesses, restaurants, etc. dotting Grand River Ave. are always full of people and it’s a blast every day! And don’t forget about the fun there’s to be had during the football, hockey, and basketball games!! I doubt you will find this sort of college experience at a LAC, however, I wouldn’t really know that for sure.</p>

<p>Don’t just take my word, though. You should visit both schools, as well as a couple LACs and see what fits you best! And if you choose MSU (we’d be glad to have ya!), take a look into the Honors College and Professorial Assistantship programs that I mentioned! Anyways, best of luck to you in your search, and please don’t just take my opinion; ask some Wolverines what they think, and visit some LACs! </p>

<p>Best wishes :slight_smile: </p>

16

<p>My D is currently attending a LAC and we looked at many of them during her college search. Like any college, LACs will vary in their core requirements. If this is a concern for you, take the time to check every school (both large university and LAC carefully). I can tell you that my S had many more core classes he had to take at his mid-sized university (which had a large Jesuit core) than my D has at her LAC. Plus within the required classes, she can pick classes from different required categories so she has a ton of options and found it very easy to fulfill.</p>

<p>In terms of research my D is currently working on two separate research projects with professors. I can’t compare it to what goes on in a university setting, but it is a huge advantage not to have to compete with grad students for research slots.</p>

<p>She is in the sciences and is getting a great education (again I can’t compare it to a university as my S was in the business school at his college). We visited the schools and she took care to select a LAC that was strong in the sciences (ex. she went back to her two top choices and sat in on science classes and labs). Some LACs did appear to us to be better in the sciences than others.</p>

<p>In the end you can get a great education at any sized school – it boils down to finding your personal preference as to the size/environment of school you choose to attend.</p>

17

<p>1) You’d have to do that at Michigan and Michigan State, too. General education requirements are a thing at most universities and colleges, although you don’t necessarily need to analyze poetry. You will likely need to take 1-2 humanities courses (in additional to freshman English).</p>

<p>2) Well, it depends on what you mean by quality. Large research universities like Michigan and Michigan State bring in millions of dollars of research money, and so they can do much more expensive and cutting-edge research. However, at an LAC, there are no grad students or postdocs, so you may be expected/able to do a higher level of research earlier in your career. It’s a trade-off. As for the latter, it depends on what kind of LAC you to go. Professors at elite LACs are usually former top graduate students who often have postdoctoral experience and would’ve been competitive for jobs at R1 universities. They’re going be teaching 4 or 5 classes a year, which is on par or just a bit higher than research universities, and will be doing a lot of research and even have labs. But if you go to a mid-ranked or lower LAC, those professors will be primarily teachers.</p>

<ol>
<li>This is a very broad question. Generally speaking your classes at an LAC will be smaller, with few or zero TAs and more attention from the professor. At a large uni like Michigan or MSU, your intro classes will be very large with labs taught by grad students. But your upper-level classes will likely be medium-sized. They will probably differ in other ways, too, but that’s the most significant.</li>
</ol>

18

<p>In addn to looking at classes offered, you can research the profs. Their U bios often detail their projects and you can always google to see how active they are. </p>

19

<p>Not that I’m recommending it, but because my daughter goes to Hamilton, I’m familiar with it and this is their website, which I suggest you take a look at.
<a href=“Physics - Hamilton College Areas of Study”>http://www.hamilton.edu/academics/departments/Home?dept=Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It’s a typical, not outstanding LAC for physics. Nice, modern facility, which some schools don’t have, located in the basement of the science center. (They purposely located each science on a level that builds up from the basic, and since physics is the basis of everything, it gets the basement.) Take a look at what the students are doing and where they’ve gone on to. Also note that because of the open curriculum, double majors are common, with math and physics being very popular, but just about any combo is possible. Their research projects are also noted and they aren’t shabby. Some of the grads go on to work in engineering, others go on to pure physics, others go on to teach HS or college, it’s really where you want to take it.</p>

<p>I think the other thing to remember about undergrad physics is, for all but the most exceptional students, you’re pretty much going to be learning the fundamentals at the undergrad level. If you can establish a strong base, you can pretty much go on to anywhere. If you feel most comfortable at a large school, go there, if at a LAC, go there. Just pick a good program no matter what size you choose.</p>

20

<p>Thanks for all the great advice guys!<br>
I’ll keep this stuff in mind when I do more research. By the way, I do plan on going on to grad school so a school that will prepare me well for that is very important to me.</p>

<p>One more quick question though. Do the LACs you guys are listing (Reed, Lawrence, Grinnell, etc.) offer much aid? (merit and need-based)</p>

<p>PrestonIS, MSU Honors College might be all it takes for me to attend MSU. I just know it’ll take away so much stress over getting involved in research.</p>