“That would depend on the student and what they’re majoring in, not the school itself.”
Huh?
You don’t think that what proportion of students go to PhD programs in a subject from a LAC has anything to do with the educational quality/rigor (at least in that subject) at that LAC?
If you truly believe that, then why even care about educational quality/rigor across different LACs? After all, you seem to think that any particular student would be able to at least enter a PhD program regardless of the quality of the education they received.
op, to answer your question, yes, i do think you get a significantly better education at a top 20 liberal arts college, but compared to what? #18 vs. #21? probably not. #18 vs. #90? probably. i, also, think i (will) get a significantly better education at a liberal arts college in general because i learn better that way—smaller class sizes, etc.
but rankings are sometimes bologna, especially when it comes to the top 20 and even 30-50. spots #12 and #18 on the USNWR ranking list are separated by one point. one. spots #8 and #18 are separated by four. as it has been said, reed is #82, but that’s because it doesn’t play the ranking game, and i know sarah lawrence doesn’t like to play the ranking game either. if reed did, however, play the ranking game, i’m a firm believer that it could easily crack the top ten. i want them to fill out the USNWR just one time to see what happens and what people would say. reed would probably pull a uchicago.
@PurpleTitan No, I don’t think that the proportion has to do with academic rigor, actually. It depends on what you do while you’re at school. You can go to a top LAC, but if you don’t do internships and/or research, no PhD program will want you. I believe I already stated that a top LAC isn’t necessarily better, it just has smarter kids doing more in depth work. I’m not sure why you’re getting so defensive about it.
My son went to a top LAC, but he took a few years off to work because in his profession, he knew he needed to publish a research paper in order to be accepted into a PhD program. So it wasn’t about the rigor of his program in college, it’s what he does during his time afterwards that really makes a difference. Luckily, he was able to do research in college that led to his employment, which will then lead to his PhD. And actually, the professor doing the research usually only hires kids that go to top LAC’s and universities because he knows they’re the brightest of the bright and at the top of their class.
@megan12: “I believe I already stated that a top LAC isn’t necessarily better, it just has smarter kids doing more in depth work.”
And you don’t think that should have any correlation with PhD admissions?
“I’m not sure why you’re getting so defensive about it.”
Not defensive. I don’t actually don’t have a dog in this fight. I just think what you are saying doesn’t make sense.
For any one kid, yes, whether they go to a PhD program depends on what they do, but if, as you state, top LACs have smarter kids doing more in depth work than other, let’s say “lesser” LACs, then how do you explain some of those “lesser” LACs consistently ending up with a higher proportion of kids getting PhDs (at least in some subjects)?
@PurpleTitan Why should only the top LACs have kids getting into PhD programs? I think what you’re saying doesn’t make sense so I guess we’re even. Plus, not all kids need to get PhD’s. Maybe the top kids are doing what they want without the additional degrees, or they’re taking time off between UG and Grad school like my S, which would probably change your statistics.
It seems you don’t have all the facts so without looking at all the variables, there’s no way to answer that question. I’m pretty sure, though, if you sent a kid who did not have the grades in high school that these top kids have to the same LAC’s they attend, that poor kid would crash and burn or be completely burned out trying to keep up with the geniuses in the same classes. The profs are teaching at the level of the students. It’s common sense. That’s why there are different levels of classes in high school. If all the kids learn at different levels, then how could all the colleges be the same? I can’t imagine my two kids going to the same college because one has a genius IQ and thinks at a higher level, and the other doesn’t.
I don’t know why the proportions are skewed. Perhaps you should ask the PhD program staff instead of me. Maybe they’re looking at something other than just the academics, as I stated before.
I’m not sure this is true for several reasons. The difference in ACT scores, for example, between the very top LACs and those further down on the list is fairly small. I’m going to guess that many students with a 30 ACT are just as capable of absorbing and analyzing material as the student with a 33 ACT. Many students have lower overall scores because they are a little lopsided in their talents. The brilliant English student who is bad in math will have a lower overall GPA and SAT score, but be every bit as capable of studying literature at a high level. Its only in high school, that we demand kids be geniuses in every subject. Once they hit college, they can focus on their strengths. Finally, its clear that there are far more high achieving students then there are spots at top colleges. The cost of college is also shutting many high achievers out of those places. As more and more successful students filter down to schools lower on the rankings, that will continue to elevate the discourse at those schools.
@cb4bowie My kid looked at many LACs, ranked all the way from #1 to about #80 on USNWR (if you care about rankings). She applied to ones in the 25-65 range.
At the tippy top, I think that you’re paying a premium for the opportunity to interact with academically ambitious peers, given the insanely high stats that are required these days. This is not to say you won’t find equally talented and motivated students a tier or two down. Just that there will be a bit more variability within a fairly narrow distribution. You will find dedicated faculty everywhere and LACs at all levels prize quality instruction. As @intparent mentioned, however, there may be specific opportunities available at places with larger endowments, depending on major, etc.
So for my D it came down to that elusive “fit.” I remember when she was eliminating schools, she looked at courses offered and which seemed more exciting. She looked at the number of tenure stream faculty vs. lecturers or adjuncts. She looked at what their research was about. On campus visits, she looked for student engagement - not were the kids the smartest but did they take their learning seriously? What did the student culture look like? A school that was somewhat lower ranked on paper moved forward because faculty and students seemed universally kind.
Because of their size, LACs can be very idiosyncratic and, as mentioned upthread, standout majors will vary across campuses.
Lawrence, BTW, looks like a great option with happy students, a quality music scene, and a cute town of a reasonable size. That outdoor retreat center looks amazing!
I disagree with the last part of this statement. Top LACs are only drawing top kids. However, lower-ranked LACs - as well as pretty much every large university, public or private - is drawing a wider assortment of kids including top kids also doing in-depth work. The level of caliber between a top LAC and the top kids in the honors programs and these research universities is going to be very similar. There are brilliant kids doing amazing things at every state public flagship.
IMO, the average kid at a top LAC is getting a better education than an average kid at an average university. However, the average kid at that top LAC may not be getting a better education than his equally capable counterpart who is probably in an honors program at that average university. The question becomes, would the average person in an honors programs at Alabama, et al receive the same education as the average person at a top LAC?
There is no changing minds in this thread, just like in many other threads on CC, because there is just too much bias. Not everyone is destined or wants to go to Wall Street. Not everyone wants to major in STEM. Not every college is going to rank highly on Payscale because some churn out teachers, for example, that get paid well beneath their value, but are so heavily relied upon to get their kids into a top 25 college. As parents, it’s our job to raise educated, healthy, and empathetic kids to fill all sorts of roles in our society because we need them all. It’s not helpful to “college shame” kids because they aren’t at a “tippy top” (and who really calls them that?) or don’t make six figures by 27.
Regardless, I have noticed that one indicator of success that seems to get largely overlooked here (because everyone has their eyes on GPA’s and ACT scores) is EQ. According to many, it may be the leading indicator of success, and it has nothing to do with where you went to school or what your stats are.
@lastone03 Excellent point that needs to be repeated on CC regularly.
Too many parents are hung up on Wall Street recruiting from the top schools, which is really misguided. For one, even at a top school, landing one of those Wall Street jobs is very competitive. Second, and more importantly, working on Wall Street is not the only path to success. Third, working on Wall Street is quite a miserable way to earn a living, which is why the attrition rate is so high. Fourth, we would be in a whole lot of trouble if every student asprired only to Wall Street, engineering, computer science, or medicine. It’s certainly no path to happiness and fulfillment. Interestingly, the elite schools are lamenting the high percentages of talented students that are choosing careers based on money rather than careers where they can really make a positive impact on society.
It can be tough being a kid at one of those top LACs…many of D’s friends are or have already gone into consulting/finance stuff, often beginning in that first summer…and the pressure is pretty high. D is not interested in that path but her friends make a ton of $$ even in their summer internships, work in cool cities, have a clear path to what they will do after graduation.
It can be hard to resist that particular siren call, IMO.
Just because a LAC is more selective doesn’t mean that all of its students are operating on a higher plane than the students who are attending colleges a few notches down on the selectivity scale.
To start with, there’s also a certain value in intellectual diversity – that is, a broad enough admissions policy to avoid setting up a group-think or echo chamber type of environment, valuing the breadth of interests and experience that students who didn’t happen to be top achievers or top test-scorers in high school bring with them.
Elite LAC’s also have a substantial number of students who are admitted due to athletic prowess; many have a strong on-campus drinking culture; the schools tend to rely heavily on ED, which in turn favors students from wealthier families who have had private schooling and plenty of test prep. All those students are probably also very bright and capable, but they may not all be strongly intellectual or academically focused. Some are simply ordinary bright kids who have had a lot of advantages and encouragement in their lives.
Down the scale of selectivity the schools are offering merit aid, which means that high performing students from upper middle class famlies that cannot afford full pay are going to end up choosing those environments. LAC’s are somewhat self-selecting, so even less selective ones tend to attract serious students, whatever their measured ability level.
In the end the quality of the education is going to depend on the student and what the student puts into their classes, or seeks from them.
@tutumom2001 That may be true, but that wasn’t the OP’s original question. It was only asking about LAC’s.
@gallentjill Again, that’s getting away from the original question that I was attempting to answer. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the student’s ACT/SAT scores. Yes, it’s true that a lot of the smarter kids are ending up at lower LAC’s because they were either shut out (my kid was rejected at A LOT of places) or they chose the lower LAC for the merit aid, or they simply liked the fit there. But that doesn’t change the fact that everyone at the top LAC’s are extremely bright and are being taught at a higher level than the typical LAC a tier or two down. It’s common sense. If your student body is mostly kids that have good grades but are not at the level of the highest LAC student, then it would be crazy to teach them at the highest level. They would all fail. The only kids who should be taught at that level would be the kids in the honor programs at that school.
It all seems pretty logical to me. My smart kid could either go to the top LAC he went to, or he could go to a lower tier school and be in the honors program. I assume the level of teaching would be similar. I would not have suggested that he go to a lower LAC and learn at the same level as the majority of the students, however, because he wouldn’t have been challenged enough. It would have been like his regular English class in high school, which he chose to stay in so he could pursue his own creative writing in his spare time. It gave him fewer writing assignments, but he was bored and thought the questions asked by the students were ridiculous simply because he was thinking on a completely different level than they were. The students weren’t stupid. He just needed more intellectual stimulation than they did, which is why I believe that the highest LAC’s are teaching at the most rigorous level. Each LAC is teaching at the level that the student body learns best.
Significantly better? Probably not unless we are comparing a top 20 LAC with a school below the top 75 or so. Depends heavily on the major but for a pure Bachelors of Liberal Arts degree, I don’t think so.
" The only kids who should be taught at that level would be the kids in the honor programs at that school."
Do most LACs even have an honors program?? Not the ones I know best and if they do (Swat) it is not separate classes, just writing a senior thesis. If they do exist at lower ranked schools, it must be below the top 40-50 or so.
@megan12:
“Why should only the top LACs have kids getting into PhD programs.”
They don’t. Which is my point. If some LAC that is ranked lower is among the best at sending kids in to PhD programs in a certain subject, then it seems logical that their teaching in that subject is as rigorous as those at the top LACs. If that isn’t true, you’d have to explain how a lower-ranked LAC with in general lower-stats kids can actually do a better job of getting their kids in to PhD programs than a top-ranked LAC.
“I don’t know why the proportions are skewed. Perhaps you should ask the PhD program staff instead of me. Maybe they’re looking at something other than just the academics, as I stated before.”
Er, no. PhD admissions is not at all like undergrad admissions. They’re not looking to build a class or something like that.
So I agree with @calmom:
“Just because a LAC is more selective doesn’t mean that all of its students are operating on a higher plane than the students who are attending colleges a few notches down on the selectivity scale.”
Also, @megan12, your comparison of LACs with tracking in HS is fallacious because while HS contains the entire range of intellectual abilities in the teenage population (minus HS dropouts), the difference in academic quality between the student body at a top 20 LAC and top 50 LAC just isn’t that big. Heck, even the difference with a top 100 LAC isn’t that big.
For instance, Davidson is ranked #10 by USNews. According to Prep Scholar, the average ACT at Davidson is 30.
Whitman is ranked #41 by USNews. According to Prep Scholar, the average ACT at Whitman is . . . .also 30.
It would be preposterous to think that the academics at Whitman are less rigorous than the academics at Davidson just because USNews ranks one school 31 places lower than the other when the statistical quality of the student bodies are the same.
Now let’s look at a top 100 LAC:
Hendrix is ranked #76. The average ACT at Hendrix is 28.
An ACT of 30 is 95th percentile. An ACT of 28 is 90th percentile.
In HS, both the 95th percentile kid and 90th percentile kid would both be in the honors track. Neither of them would be taking “Algebra for Dummies”.
Looking at the data, I have to draw the conclusion that you have no clue how good many LACs outside the top 20 are.
Just for kicks, I looked up the average ACT’s at the LAC’s the OP’s kid was choosing from:
Grinnell: 32 (98th percentile)
Macalester: 31 (96th percentile)
Knox: 26 (83rd percentile)
Lawrence: 29 (92nd percentile)
Not exactly a huge difference between 98th, 96th, and 92nd percentiles.
Haverford: 32 (98th percentile)
Vassar: 31 (96th percentile)
Sarah Lawrence: 29 (92nd percentile)
St. John’s (MD): 30 (95th percentile)
The numbers speak for themselves, and under Sarah Lawrence’s tutorial system, profs could tailor the rigor to suit a kid.