<p>I'm considering which type of school to go, so that I can take the best education of biology and go to the best PhD program in the US. From the types of schools listed in the title, the former is such as Reed, Carleton, Wesleyan, and Grinnell, and the latter is such as Imperial College and UCL (not Oxbridge), both of which are ranked within top 5 in the UK and top 15 in the world. I personally like British schools for its specialized curriculum, but I suspect I will be at disadvantage in grad admission if I will go to a British university. </p>
<p>I go to Pomona College and am strongly considering a study abroad at UCL in the Molecular Biosciences. From my extensive research and reviewing of fellow student peer evaluations, here are some very clear differences:</p>
<p>1) UCL’s classes are gigantic- 150+ students even in upper level courses. Rare is a Pomona College course with over 30 students.
2) UCL’s lectures, especially in the sciences, are taught in multiple-lecturer style. On the one hand, you get multiple experiences and research interests amalgamated in an umbrella topic of biology. On the other, you can not connect with the faculty to the same extent, there may be redundancy, and there isn’t really a smooth flow to lectures. At Pomona, while usually only one lecturer teaches your course, you have a more consistent academic experience and ample individual time with them.
3) Classes at UCL usually only have one or two things determining your composite grade. At Pomona, most classes have homework, midterms, and lab component factored in the grade. It would seem that this makes UCL more rigorous, but most of our students have done just fine.
4) Biology courses at Pomona emphasize significant lab experience. UCL is more of a theoretical approach, with a long one time 2000 word essay in lieu of weekly lab reports.
5) Research is very difficult to find as an UCL undergraduate. At Pomona, it’s so easy to become connected due to lack of graduate students and a massive student endowment.
6) Residential experiences are not emphasized by UCL. You have to put in a determined effort to make friends and join societies. At Pomona and other LACs, the residential life is just as crucial to the experience as the in-class, academic one is.
7) UCL is in the heart of London, and going out is fundamental to the experience. Liberal art colleges form more of a bubble due to their residential experiences. Pomona is a little different due to its central location in the SoCal basin, but the LACs you mentioned are more isolated.
8) UCL emphasizes specialization. Pomona emphasizes flexibility and exploration. But at Pomona, you can specialize just as you would at UCL, so there are simply more options to take.
9) The faculty quality at Pomona seems to be a lot higher (in terms of where professors have earned their PhDs). However, UCL faculty have published more extensive research because that is the focus there.
10) On average, UCL is probably likely to be a lot cheaper than a US LAC. However, these LACs usually meet full demonstrated need, so cost is entirely situational. Also, London is ridiculously more expensive than pretty much anywhere in the continental USA. </p>
<p>They’re very different models and both yield successful students. It all depends on what you want. The nurturing nature of LACs can make it easy to fall behind or to not put in your best effort, while the British education always keeps you on your toes in the area of study that you want to be most involved with. At LACs, you could get both perspectives through study abroad. At UCL, studying abroad to an LAC is probably unheard of. </p>
<p>Thanks for your helpful information. I didn’t expect that UCL’s classes could be that huge, since its students-faculty ratio should be around 10:1 and the lowest in the UK. Also, I thought British research universities were more research-friendly than American research universities in terms of their encouragement of student’s research, as there is always mandatory dissertation for graduation in the UK. Basically, the research is my most important factor to decide which college to go, but I also focus on how much my college can allow me to specialize on a single subject. This is why I applied for Grinnell and Wesleyan, where there’s almost no strict credit requirement. </p>
<p>If you intend to take courses in only one or a few departments for many semesters, make sure the department(s) offer enough courses to support that plan. Course requirements (or the lack of them) notwithstanding, American LACs tend to emphasize breadth more than depth. Their primary mission isn’t to provide highly specialized training at the cutting edge of biology and other fields. They leave that to graduate schools. </p>
<p>Below are my estimates of the percentage of biological science majors at various schools who go on to earn PhDs in the biological/life sciences.</p>
<p>Method<br>
M = number of graduating majors in biological sciences per school, 2012<br>
P = number of PhDs in biological sciences conferred on alumni per school, 2006-10<br>
Rate = P / (M*5) </p>
<p>Rate … P … M … School/
37% Carleton College
34% Wesleyan University
32% Reed College
22% Swarthmore College, University of Chicago, Princeton
21% Grinnell College
19% Harvard College
11% UC Berkeley
10% Johns Hopkins
9% University of Wisconsin - Madison
8% University of Michigan - AA
4% University of Southern California</p>
<p>Thanks for showing your helpful analysis. Although I knew pretty well about each LAC’s PhD productivity, I’m both surprised and glad to see Wesleyan on the list. I already checked all the courses offered by each college and I think they offer many enough courses for undergrad-level. But the problem in choosing LAC is that not going to one of these top universities may be a terrible loss for me. I still cannot be sure about this point. </p>
<p>Have you considered any American research universities like Brown that have open/flexible curriculum requirements? I would not let statistics like the PhD production numbers overrule strong personal preferences for larger schools. I also wouldn’t assume that students at UK universities are at a disadvantage in admission to top grad schools. What evidence have you seen for that? </p>
<p>Basically, schools like Brown are out of my reach, and my first choice of research university is UCB, which doesn’t have such flexible curriculum but I don’t dislike this school for that reason. I assumed that they are at a disadvantage because many people in CC and other websites encourage me to stay in the US to maximize the chance. But since I became to suspect the reliability of their advice strongly, I asked some PhD programs about the chances. I think asking the adcom in PhD program is the best way to ask this sort of subtle questions. </p>
<p>That’s not a bad idea. Keep in mind that many US PhD programs may not get too many UK applicants. So, they might not have much experience in this area. That does not necessarily mean they wouldn’t welcome applications from strong UK students with well-focused research interests.</p>
<p>BTW, possibly Nostalgicwisdom’s beliefs about the lack of research involved in UCL’s undergrad degree are based on the fact that his/her situation related to a single year abroad there. </p>
<p>The university’s own website provides good outlines of what is o offer in all the bio related degrees, and the final year in each case is almost entirely set aside for the student’s own research project.</p>
<p>I think you are taking a short view of this. You will get research experience at the LACs you listed. And a known route to PhD programs. You have your whole career to research in a university setting… don’t be in such a rush to do it all right now. You could lose more by going the UK route and having trouble getting your work recognized for PhD program acceptance. Plus, the large class sizes of the UK university are a really disadvantage, IMHO. If you are struggling, it is a lot harder to right yourself and get the help you need in that environment (which I know from having attended a large US research university for undergrad).</p>
<p>Also, you mentioned the mandatory dissertation for the UK college. Reed has the same, and I think most of the other colleges on your list offer the opportunity for an honors thesis that can be research based. Almost all LACs do these days. So if you plan to do it anyway, the ‘mandatory’ component doesn’t matter, it is available at the LACs as well. And likely with more faculty time and support given the smaller class sizes.</p>
<p>Is research also available for Sophomore or even Freshman in UCL? I’m pretty curious about the opportunities. </p>
<p>Yeah, taking an uncertain way is the least favorable path I can take. Also, the fact that I can stay in the undergrad for only three years means that I can’t take much time to have research experience or research internship. I didn’t know that UCL has far more people than average LACs do. But their endowment is probably lower than that of Grinnell. If I will be accepted to UCB, I will totally don’t need to care about UCL. Now that I’m regarding LACs as good place as or better place than UCB, I may have to rethink about British universities. If I will go to schools like Grinnell or Wesleyan, I can specialize on bio&biochem as well. Carleton is great, too. I don’t like Reed as much as other LACs, though. UCL and ICL may provide as nice education as UCB and Cornell do, but many people are encouraging me to go to LAC over such schools, so I will probably go to LAC.</p>
<p>You do need to cover some of the basics in taught classes before you can contribute in a realistically worthwhile way to a research project.</p>
<p>The endowment issue is a bit of a red herring here. Most of UCL’s funding comes from the UK government; with some external money for research.</p>
<p>But obviously, if an LAC is now appealing to you more, that may be the right thing for you to do. But make your own decision - don’t take other people as your sole guide.</p>
<p>Exactly. I need self-study to get sufficient knowledge of my interested field as soon as possible beside working on my coursework. This is also the reason why I like school which allows the student to specialize on a single subject. I will re-consider about UCL&ICL after receiving a response from some American PhD programs about how successful in their admission British students are and how their evaluation of UCL&ICL is like. </p>
<p>Why do you need to “self study to get sufficient knowledge of my interested field as soon as possible beside working on my coursework”? I really don’t understand your rush – you have your whole career to be immersed in some narrow band of science if that is what you want. And there is a lot to be said about broadening your view of the world during your undergraduate studies – cross-disciplinary thinking is actually a very valuable skill in a scientist.</p>
<p>My interest also covers molecular biology, so I will inevitably have cross-disciplinary training by studying organic chemistry and biochemistry. I like math, physics, economics, and psychology, so I have studied various subjects deeply by myself and will study them as deep as possible in undergrad. I need to self-study so that I can work on research as soon as possible. Grad schools highly value rich research experience, and I personally like output as much as input. There are many rising-sophomores who work on SURF and REU, so I will be just one of them. </p>
<p>I think your user name says it all… you are WAY too worried about researching your freshman year. Driving your whole college search around that is a mistake… but you seem like someone who is convinced you have your life plan charted out.</p>