Elite Liberal Arts Colleges Vs. Ivies/Top Universities?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>This is a question that I answered at the very beginning of my college process, and I know that many, many people came up with a different answer, but so be it. I'm going to announce my bias right now and say that I'm going to attend Carleton College next year, and I applied exclusively to LAC. One of the biggest prerequisites for the schools to which i was applying that I would be taught by full professors, even as a freshman. I came to the conclusion after viewing my sister's experience at Pomona College, as well as extensive research, that I believed that the best undergraduate education I could reciever was not at an Ivy league school, or a big name school like Cal, Duke, Northwestern, UChicago etc, but at a selective, elite LAC. (I am not saying that I could get into any of those powerhouse universities by any means, but just that I decided not to even try).</p>

<p>So, my question is this: Which type of school do you believe provides a better undergraduate education, an elite liberal arts college(I'm talking about essentially the top 15 ranked LACs in the country: Williams, Amherst, Haverford, Carleton, Pomona, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Wesleyan down to about Claremont Mckenna or Colby) OR an Ivy league school or top 10 non Ivy league university(So, all Ivies +Duke, UCB, Northwestern, Uchicago, UMich, Emory, WashU, UNC-CH etc)??</p>

<p>I pretty much gave my answer up above, but I certainly believe that for undergraduate education, you can not get a more well-rounded and engaging education than at a small, elite LAC. While the resources of the Ivies are overwhelming, you have to compete with graduate students, who clearly have precedent in the professor's eyes.</p>

<p>I would love to here what other CCers have to say on this question.</p>

2

<p>Well, OP, you know me. I'm also going to Carleton next year and also applied to all LACs. Needless to say, I came to the same conclusion as you did.</p>

<p>I believe that "fit" is a more likely indicator of success than "prestige." I also believe that where some people may thrive in the Ivy/large university atmosphere, I would not. For me, a smaller school with a real sense of community, where students are expected to sample a variety of subjects instead of honing in on one field immediately, is much more conducive to learning. Also a plus for me, the admissions process to LACs can, simply because of the size of the class and applicant pool, take into account more than just numeric factors. Another high point is the fact that professors are hired not to do prestigious research or publish until the presses bleed, but to teach (strange as that is)! And I would personally thrive socially in a smaller, quirkier, less-sports-and-drinking oriented environment.</p>

<p>These are just personal preferences, of course. What's good for me is not good for everyone. Notably, I'm not terribly interested in obtaining a sky-high salary when I come out of college. I'm much more interested in expanding my mind (and prepping for grad school and non-profit work!). LACs are simply preferable for me because of their greater focus on teaching, their smaller size, and their philosophy that encourages experimentation with various subject areas.</p>

3

<p>Leshachikha-do you have facebook? Are you a member of the Carleton class of 11 group? If so, we probablly are "facebook friends" haha. I agree with everything you just said.</p>

4

<p>I hadn't known that there was a facebook group already! I'm off to go join that now, hehe...</p>

5

<p>I think that it is quite individual. Both types of schools have their advantages for each student. Small LAC's sometimes don't have specfic majors and some people rally want the pageantry and atmosphere of big-time college athletics. I think both have much to offer to everybody and one needs to find the type that fits your needs/likes. I don't think one is better or worse than the other. There are also significant overlaps such as Dartmouth and Rice (as well as others)</p>

<p>Given all of that, my D has applied to 5 LAC's and 2 mid-sized (6000-7000 students) Universities with LAC's as her 1st and 2nd choices.</p>

6

<p>Not all the Ivies are huge. Dartmouth's class is only 1,050, and the focus at that school is completely undergraduates. In fact, they only have graduate schools in business, engineering, and medicine.</p>

7

<p>if you look at the average graduate first year salary, i think you would find top universities to be better than elite LACs</p>

<p>and i really really don't think you can compare HYP with, say, carleton and ponoma. amherst and williams MAYBE, but i really doubt it. just look at the admittance rate. HYP stagnate at about 10%. amherst and the such are at least 20%. you have to wonder where that 10% difference came from</p>

<p>also, just in terms of ego, the average american isn't impressed by williams. but everyone starts to go crazy when you mention harvard. this is frustrating, but sadly true</p>

8

<p>Top universities just have more prestige, which turns into a better chance to get into a great job out of college. I mean really...people react better to an Ivy League (excluding Dartmouth...who no one in the real world seems to know about) than to Amherst (although even highly intelligent people seem to think it is for some reason) or Williams. </p>

<p>I value Liberal Arts schools much higher, because I believe the education is much better. But that does not equate to prestige, which is what is important in terms of finding your first job.</p>

9

<p>innocentstalker1:</p>

<p>It's true that there's a difference between Ivy selectivity and top LAC selectivity. But then, I know a lot of people who just dashed off an application to Harvard or Yale "for the heck of it," even though the rest of the schools they were applying to were state schools or the like. The Ivies have to hack through a thicket of average students who send off slap-dash applications. They're much more well known and receive many thousands of applications that are only semi-serious. But the average grades and scores of Ivies are not light-years beyond those of the top LACs (especially the top 5 LACs). </p>

<p>MLEVINE07:</p>

<p>I agree with you completely that LACs often lack the salary-grabbing power of an Ivy. But if one is not considering a career known for high salaries, that's often a moot point. If prestige is secondary, a LAC might suit someone's needs better. </p>

<p>Besides, most employers are familiar with and respect the top LACs, so the difference between those schools and HYP is not insurmountably vast. Your typical employer will not look at a Swarthmore degree with an expression of puzzlement.</p>

<p>So really, for me, the benefit of the style of education received at a LAC outweighs any loss of prestige. It may not be so for everyone, but it's just my personal preference.</p>

10

<p>I love LAC-style education. My D attends a top LAC and is getting a great education there. However, the LAC environment can be found ouside of LACs... at smaller Ivies, in certain elite departments within larger Universities, and maybe in some honors programs, or at smaller Us like Chicago and Rice. </p>

<p>Brown is another Ivy that is primarily focused on undergrads, like Dartmouth. It has a very LAC feel. Furthermore, because of the open curriculum, you will never "have to" take any class. This means you can easily avoid large lecture courses or TAs if you so desire.</p>

11

<p>The top Universities really vary in their size/style of education, whereas top LACs are all similar in their size. For example, top Universities range from Dartmouth, which is the smallest, to Princeton or Duke, which are more medium sized, to Cornell, which is much larger than either. Not that size is a bad thing, but the Universities aren't that homogenous that you can compare them all in a similar way.</p>

12

<p>"It's true that there's a difference between Ivy selectivity and top LAC selectivity."</p>

<p>Please remember that there is a difference among the Ivy League. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton do not comprise the entire Ivy League, and when you get past those three (and arguably Columbia) there is very little difference between the rest (majority) of the Ivy League and Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore in terms of selectivity. AWS are arguably more selective than a few of the Ivy League schools. People always seem to forget that not all Ivies are created equal.</p>

13

<p>i also only looked at smaller schools- i knew it would be a much beter fit for me than a large impersonal school.</p>

<p>it really is a matter of preference though. for example, the odds are pretty good that the psych 101 textbook used for an elite LAC is going to the same book used as the elite university.</p>

14

<p>I think Cornell is so completely overrated, it is unbelievable to me. Where I am from,. so many kids with rather "questionable" stats get in. These kids, the majority at least, had no shot at any other top 15 school. My bro's friends, 2 of them just got into Cornell, both having under 650 on their SAT verbal. I mean, they are both caucasian males with nothing special. I doubt they wold ahve gotten into any other ivy with such stats. So for everyone who thinks Cornell is omg amazing, maybe you shold reconsider.</p>

<p>Someone should do something. Do the US News rankings and factor out the Peer Assessment scores, and see what happens to some schools. Some will drop big time and some will RISE heavily such as Rice!</p>

15

<p>"if you look at the average graduate first year salary, i think you would find top universities to be better than elite LACs"</p>

<p>Sure, but is that really the only reason you go to college? Frankly, I could probablly graduate from college, head to law school like my dad, and be making six figures relatively quickly. But that's not at all what I intend to do. I intend to either do Teach for America or Americorps, and then become a high school teacher. Eventually, I might go back to school and get a PhD and become a colelge professor, but who knows. Money isn't everything, and it shouldn't determine how good an education one recieves.</p>

<p>Also, according to one of my closest friend's parents, who are both professors at University of Washington Med School, the very best students in their classes are those who attended LAC's, and not ivy powerhouses. I have heard that from other people as well, that grad schools tend to favor students who attended LACs, because they have recieved a broader education.</p>

16

<p>This depends on the student and their interests. In my daughter's freshman class at Harvard, there are already students who have been exempted from taking undergraduate courses in their intended major and are taking graduate level courses. Without a graduate school, that is difficult to do.</p>

17

<p>if, by your definition, classes taught solely by Professors makes a better undergrad experience, then LAC's (and Dartmouth and a couple of other Ivies) win hands-down. If a broader definition included undegraduate engineering, Carleton, and most other LACS, drops off of every list - Swat being a big exception. </p>

<p>Others might desire big time Saturday afternoon football (and Bowl games) as part of the undergrad experience; if so, all LACs disappear. If a definition includes affordable undergraduate education (however a family defines it), perhaps the state flagship Uni is the best fit, since they can be less than half the cost of a private LAC.</p>

<p>As DocT notes, it really depends on the student's (and family's?) interest.</p>

18

<p>As someone who has just been admitted to Brown (yay!), I think that a school w/ a strong undergraduate focus is best. For me, a LAC would have been too small and also would not have the wide range of courses for me to choose from (I am especially interested in IR and foreign languages such as Arabic).</p>

19

<p>Congratulations on Brown! I think that Brown is kind of unique(along with Dartmouth), in the fact that they are more suited towards undergrads. My biggest beef I guess with HYPS, as well as some of the other powerhouse universities, is that undergrads have to fight with grad students for the top professor's attention. </p>

<p>This is obviously a completly subjective question, and so I agree with everyone who says "depends on the student's interest", but I'm just trying to see if their is a CC consensus.</p>

20

<p>"My biggest beef I guess with HYPS, as well as some of the other powerhouse universities, is that undergrads have to fight with grad students for the top professor's attention."</p>

<p>You can maybe say that of HYS, but not Princeton. It's pretty lac-like and every prof there is required to teach at least one undergrad course.</p>

<p>As for my vote: I like the ones in between like Rice and yes, even princeton.</p>