<p>I have never heard of some of those LAC's... must be hidden treasure to people who don't want to choose a major right away. I think that would be a great way to go for a lot of people.</p>
<p>Corbett - Yup, that would personally be my preference. But on another angle, in the case of my elder daughter and her sister in 11th grade, they both want to go to college in an urban environment having grown up in a small southern town. I wonder why it is that so few top LACs are in urban surroundings?</p>
<p>Wow, that article is some vindication for all us pro-LAC supporters! </p>
<p>Particulary notable is that Harvard professor quote "I enjoy teaching, I find a lot of satisfaction in contact with students, in improving my courses, but I dont feel (Harvard) values it or rewards it or cares about it".</p>
<p>BTW, Pomona is suburban, with a train station on campus that can take you to LA in 30 minutes. Same with Swarthmore and Philadelphia.</p>
<p>There are some majors that LACs simply don't teach, or don't teach well, such as engineering and business. Engineering, in particular, requires resources beyond what LACs can afford.</p>
<p>I have a suspicion that LACs are at a disadvantage when it comes to preparing students for graduate school and research/scholarship because they lack the resources and opportunities provided by graduate-level professors and programs. How do their students get first-hand experience? With whom do they mentor? </p>
<p>On the other hand, I am well aware that many LAC graduates do go on to successfully complete PhDs and professional degrees. I'm not sure how to reconcile this.</p>
<p>By the way, I happen to agree that undergraduates deserve the best classroom experience possible and they deserve plenty of faculty attention outside the classroom. This is what undergraduate tuition should be for. But I have had some great classroom lectures from great researchers. So, LACs don't have a monopoly on great teaching. But, I concede, LACs might be better at teaching, overall, because teaching is the dominant priority.</p>
<p>And, I am not sure why, but a student body of 2000 with 200 faculty would feel claustrophobic to me. I can't even imagine how an LAC "feels". A student body of 10,000 to 15,000 feels comfortable. Why do different students develop different comfort levels? Is it a personality difference? Do students from small high schools go to LACs and students from big high schools go to universities? Is there such a thing as an R1 prep high school?</p>
<p>Someone I graduated from high school with went to tiny Haverford for biology. Another classmate went to Chicago for econ. Even though I knew both of them very well, I can't imagine why they chose such different schools. Maybe there is an LAC gene.</p>
<p>I don’t want to come across as “bashing” research universities in general, or Harvard in particular. On the contrary, Harvard deserves kudos for candidly identifying its possible shortcomings. And Harvard obviously has a degree of influence that all LACs combined can’t match: if Harvard ultimately takes significant steps to improve undergraduate teaching, then other research universities will take notice and possibly follow suit. This would be a Good Thing for the universities.</p>
<p>It would only be fair if research universities took some teaching tips from the LACs, because the LACs have been stealing research tips from the universities for years. The academic job market has been steadily tightening since the 1970s, which means that LACs now have no trouble hiring well-qualified PhDs produced by the Ivies and other top research insitutions. LAC faculty today are far more aggressive about pursuing grants and establishing research programs than they were a generation or two ago; they are now fully expected to do meaningful research, and to incorporate undergraduates into their research programs. This has been a Good Thing for the LACs. And the LACs deserve kudos for maintaining their commitment to excellence in teaching, while simultaneously shifting their research efforts into a higher gear.</p>
<p>But while the LACs have been steadily improving their research programs, the universities (in general) have done little or nothing to improve their teaching. I suspect that the average research university today has larger classes, more grad student TAs, and more low-paid, non-tenure-track “adjunct” faculty than it did 20 or 30 years ago. I would prefer to see this trend turned around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a suspicion that LACs are at a disadvantage when it comes to preparing students for graduate school and research/scholarship because they lack the resources and opportunities provided by graduate-level professors and programs. How do their students get first-hand experience? With whom do they mentor?
[/quote]
As noted above, the academic job market has become very tight over the past 20-30 years. The LACs can and do hire PhDs who were trained at top research universities, and who would be qualified to do graduate-level teaching and research at such universities. The universities don't have enough tenure-track positions for them all, so many are happy to turn to LACs instead.</p>
<p>But when such people wind up at LACs, they don't just lose all of the research skills and tools that they spent years developing. The LACs encourage them to keep applying for grants and to build up research programs. The resulting programs are typically smaller in scale, and less cutting edge, than those at research universities, but they are meaningful nonetheless. </p>
<p>And the LAC faculty are forced to rely on undergraduates as research assistants -- there are no grad students, so they have no choice. The research may be less sexy at LACs than at universities, but the undergraduates participate and collaborate with the faculty at an unusually sophisticated level -- as co-authors, not bottle-washers. Graduate school admissions committees love to see this.</p>
<p>Incidentally, though all of us should take Princeton Reviews' rankings with a huge grain of salt, they have a category called "Best Overall Academic Experience for Undergraduates" which would seem to be an approximation of what's being discussed on this thread. Numbers 1-4, interestingly enough, are U. of Chicago, Stanford, Rice, and Columbia - research universities that claim teaching emphases. Then 5 through 15 are elite LACs, ending with Amherst at 15. Harvard is 16. Yale and Princeton don't make the top 20. Clearly, trying to capture and index the essence of the academic experience is akin to trying to nail jello to a tree.</p>
<p>Regarding LAC's preparation for grad school, some information can be gleaned from this ranking:
<a href="http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2005/0509/0509new1.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2005/0509/0509new1.cfm</a></p>
<p>Percentage of undergrad majors who go on to achieve PhDs in that major. In this case it's only for History majors/History PhDs, but I suspect other liberal arts (non-professional, non-technical) majors would be similar: Thanks to WesDad for the reference.</p>
<p>Wesleyan 16%
UChicago 16%
Pomona 15%
Bryn Mawr 15%
Swarthmore College 15%
Wellesley College 15%
Reed College 14%
Johns Hopkins 13%
Oberlin 13%
Stanford 11%
Mount Holyoke 11%
Smith 11%
Cornell 11%
Kalamazoo 11%
Carleton 11%
Earlham 10%
Amherst 10%
Grinnell 10%
Harvard University 9%
Brown University 9%
Macalester 9%
Georgetown 9%
Lawrence University 9%
Yale University 9%
Rice University 9%</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a suspicion that LACs are at a disadvantage when it comes to preparing students for graduate school and research/scholarship because they lack the resources and opportunities provided by graduate-level professors and programs. How do their students get first-hand experience? With whom do they mentor?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You couldn't be more wrong. Here's a list of the top 60 per capita undergrad PhD producers for the most recent 10 year period. The number is the percentage of all graduates of these schools who have gone on to get a PhD or equivalent doctorate. I've highlighted the LACs in bold:</p>
<p>Percentage of PhDs per graduate</p>
<p>Academic field: ALL</p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database</p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period
Note: Includes all NSF doctoral degrees inc. PhD, Divinity, etc., but not M.D. or Law. </p>
<p>
1 35.8% California Institute of Technology<br>
2 ** 24.7% Harvey Mudd College **
3 ** 21.1% Swarthmore College **
4 ** 19.9% Reed College **
5 18.3% Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
6 ** 16.8% Carleton College **
7 ** 15.8% Bryn Mawr College **
8 ** 15.7% Oberlin College **
9 15.3% University of Chicago<br>
10 14.5% Yale University
11 14.3% Princeton University<br>
12 14.3% Harvard University<br>
13 ** 14.1% Grinnell College **
14 ** 13.8% Haverford College **
15 ** 13.8% Pomona College **
16 13.1% Rice University
17 ** 12.7% Williams College **
18 ** 12.4% Amherst College **
19 11.4% Stanford University
20 ** 11.3% Kalamazoo College **
21 ** 11.0% Wesleyan University **
22 ** 10.6% St John's College (both campus) **
23 10.6% Brown University<br>
24 ** 10.4% Wellesley College **
25 ** 10.0% Earlham College **
26 ** 9.6% Beloit College **
27 ** 9.5% Lawrence University **
28 ** 9.3% Macalester College **
29 9.0% Cornell University, All Campuses<br>
30 ** 9.0% Bowdoin College **
31 ** 8.9% Mount Holyoke College **
32 ** 8.9% Smith College **
33 ** 8.8% Vassar College **
34 8.7% Case Western Reserve University
35 8.7% Johns Hopkins University<br>
36 ** 8.7% St Olaf College **
37 ** 8.7% Hendrix College **
38 ** 8.6% Hampshire College **
39 8.5% Trinity University<br>
40 ** 8.5% Knox College **
41 8.5% Duke University
42 ** 8.4% Occidental College **
43 8.3% University of Rochester
44 ** 8.3% College of Wooster **
45 ** 8.3% Barnard College **
46 ** 8.2% Bennington College **
47 8.1% Columbia University
48 ** 8.0% Whitman College **
49 7.9% University of California-Berkeley<br>
50 7.9% College of William and Mary
51 7.8% Carnegie Mellon University<br>
52 7.8% New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology<br>
53 7.7% Brandeis University
54 7.6% Dartmouth College<br>
55 ** 7.5% Wabash College **
56 ** 7.5% Bates College **
57 ** 7.5% Davidson College **
58 7.2% Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute<br>
59 ** 7.2% Franklin and Marshall College **
60 7.1% Fisk University
</p>
<p>If you want to understand why, you need to focus on the mentoring relationships between students and faculty at these small colleges. Here's an in-depth essay, Science at Liberal Arts Colleges: A Better Education?, about why LACs produce such a disproportionately high percentage of science PhDs by Thomas Cech. Cech is a Nobel Prize winnner in Chemistry who got his undergrad from Grinnell, his PhD at Berkeley, and did his research at U Colorado. He is currently the head of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and within the last few months, turned down Harvard's offer to be their next President. He was their first choice.</p>
<p>And, just so you don't think it's just a bunch of art history PhDs, here's the top 60 getting PhDs in Science, Math, and Engineering, again expressed as a percentage of all graduates from each school. From the same database and years as the chart above. This chart obviously has several more tech schools entering the picture.</p>
<p>
1 34% California Institute of Technology<br>
2 **24% Harvey Mudd College **
3 16% Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
4 **10% Reed College **
5 9% Rice University
6 **8% Swarthmore College **
7 8% Princeton University<br>
8 **7% Carleton College **
9 7% New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
10 7% University of Chicago<br>
11 7% Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute<br>
12 7% Case Western Reserve University
13 6% Harvard University<br>
14 6% Carnegie Mellon University<br>
15 6% Johns Hopkins University<br>
16 **6% Haverford College **
17 **6% Grinnell College **
18 6% Cornell University, All Campuses<br>
19 **5% Kalamazoo College **
20 5% Stanford University
21 5% Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
22 5% Yale University
23 5% Cooper Union<br>
24 **5% Oberlin College **
25 **5% Lawrence University **
26 **5% Bryn Mawr College **
27 **5% Williams College **
28 **5% Pomona College **
29 4% Colorado School of Mines<br>
30 **4% Bowdoin College **
31 **4% Earlham College **
32 4% Brown University<br>
33 4% University of Rochester
34 4% University of California-Berkeley<br>
35 **4% Wabash College **
36 4% Duke University
37 4% Worcester Polytechnic Institute
38 **4% Amherst College **
39 4% Stevens Institute of Technology
40 **4% St Olaf College **
41 **4% Hendrix College **
42 **4% Beloit College **
43 4% University of Missouri, Rolla<br>
44 4% University of California-San Francisco<br>
45 **4% Occidental College **
46 4% Alfred University, Main Campus<br>
47 **4% Allegheny College **
48 **4% Whitman College **
49 **4% College of Wooster **
50 4% SUNY College of Environmental Sci & Forestry<br>
51 **4% Mount Holyoke College **
52 **4% Bates College **
53 4% College of William and Mary
54 **4% Knox College **
55 **3% Franklin and Marshall College **
56 3% Georgia Institute of Technology
57 3% Washington University<br>
58 3% Long Island University Southampton Campus<br>
59 **3% Macalester College **
60 3% University of California-San Diego
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The article is interesting because it suggests that many big name professors don't teach any undergraduate level classes.
[/quote]
It's not just whether the big name professors are teaching, but also how well they are teaching. At our D's LAC teaching ability is the number one tenure criterion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a suspicion that LACs are at a disadvantage when it comes to preparing students for graduate school and research/scholarship because they lack the resources and opportunities provided by graduate-level professors and programs. How do their students get first-hand experience? With whom do they mentor?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As others have already responded, I don't think this is borne out by experience. Students at LACs benefit from close attention from professors, and mentoring is still meaningful even if it isn't coming from a faculty member with a $5 million dollar lab to work in. LAC students have skills and experiences that graduate schools are interested in, and that's partly why so many gain admission to good grad schools.</p>
<p>Not only for grad school, but for jobs here in the 'real' world, it feels like LACs are on the rise. My personal experience is that 10 or 15 years ago it was much more likely to see interviewers fall to their knees only for an applicant from Harvard or Yale. That universe has greatly expanded, and people from the best LACs seem to get as good a reception now.</p>
<p>"there is a good case that you can connect with faculty more readily, and therefore leverage these opportunities more effectively, as a graduate or professional student, rather than as an undergraduate."</p>
<p>Yet we very rarely hear this argument from anyone who did both undergrad and grad at Harvard or its peers. I attended a small elite LAC for two years, then Harvard College for two years, then went to professional school at Harvard.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The teaching wasn't any better at the LAC. It was mostly very good at both schools, with a few duds at both schools. Yes, the atmosphere was very different, and the LAC was a much better fit for some of my classmates, but that doesn't mean the teaching is better.</p></li>
<li><p>I know dozens of Harvard College grads who then got JDs, MDs, PhDs, MPPs, and MBAs at Harvard. I have literally never met anyone in that group who thought that the graduate schools outshone the college at Harvard. If I could only have gone to Harvard once, I'd choose college easily, and that's typical among the double-grads I know...all of whom attended prior to whatever teaching improvements may be on the way due to this project.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
The teaching wasn't any better at the LAC.
[/quote]
OK, let's consider this statement in light of your public profile and the current US News rankings.</p>
<p>The implication is that when it comes to undergraduate teaching quality, upper-division classes at the #2 National University are comparable to lower-division classes at the #20 National Liberal Arts College. </p>
<p>This may be a realistic appraisal. However, most people would not perceive it as favorable to the university, given that it stands far above the LAC in terms of fame, wealth, and selectivity. Given all of these advantages, is this really they best they can do? And where would a higher ranked LAC stand relative to this university?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I could only have gone to Harvard once, I'd choose college easily, and that's typical among the double-grads I know
[/quote]
The specific issue in question was interaction with faculty. It's likely that the choice you describe also reflects other aspects of the college experience. </p>
<p>Harvard faculty publish prolifically (if they didn't, they wouldn't be Harvard faculty). Many of their publications are co-authored with Harvard students. But how many of those do you suppose are co-authored with undergraduates? Probably some -- but only a small percentage. You would be far more likely to collaborate closely with a Harvard professor at a more advanced level of study, which was the point of the original post.</p>
<p>"OK, let's consider this statement in light of your public profile and the current US News rankings."</p>
<p>OK, if you think that's useful.</p>
<p>"the #20 National Liberal Arts College."</p>
<p>If you're going to take USNews at its word, Bryn Mawr was #10 at the time I attended, and Haverford, where I took almost half of my classes, was #6. Harvard was at #2 then as now.</p>
<p>"upper-division classes at the #2 National University are comparable to lower-division classes"</p>
<p>No, I took the same ratio of upper and lower division classes at each college because I had a new and different set of requirements to fill after I transferred.</p>
<p>"The specific issue in question was interaction with faculty. It's likely that the choice you describe also reflects other aspects of the college experience. "</p>
<p>Well, is faculty interaction the only thing that matters when you're choosing a college? Or even the only thing that matters when you're evaluating the academic experience? But if you want to focus on that narrow question, no, I did not have more intimate interaction with faculty during my graduate studies at Harvard than I had as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Anecdotal experience won't take us very far either way. Outcome statistics (and perhaps survey results) seem to be the best objective measures available for forming valid generalizations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Outcome statistics (and perhaps survey results) seem to be the best objective measures available for forming valid generalizations.
[/quote]
In 2005, the [url=<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506758%5Dpress%5B/url">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506758]press[/url</a>] somehow got access to an internal, confidential Harvard memo discussing the results of a detailed 2002 survey of peer institutions. The memo was discussed in the Crimson as follows:
[quote]
Harvard students gave lower ratings than peers to the level of interaction with faculty members...The poll analysis indicated that Harvard also fell behind other schools by a small margin in faculty availability, quality of instruction, and quality of advising...Cabot Professor of American Literature Lawrence Buell, the former dean of undergraduate education, noted that while the poll differences were marginal, Harvard still needed to work toward improving its undergraduate experience. </p>
<p>“Having spent the first half of my career teaching at one of the nation's liberal arts colleges and having before that received my A.B. from a competitor university where faculty on average were more intensively involved in undergraduate instruction and advising than is the case at Harvard even today, I am frankly not surprised by the survey results,” he wrote in an e-mail.
[/quote]
If you're curious, the unnamed schools that Buell refers to are apparently Oberlin and Princeton.</p>
<p>Full survey results are not available. Williams and Amherst, which seem to be the LACs most often cited as possible models for Harvard, were apparently included in the survey, but their scores are not specifically addressed.</p>
<p>Alot of Research Universities already have small classes and other good qualities of LAC's...such as Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Chicago, Georgetown. All of them have strong emphasis on undergrad life, smaller class sizes, and tons of research opportunities and programs geared solely towards undergrads. </p>
<p>I wasn't aware Harvard was deficient in those things, but I'm not sure why it is looking at small LACs that are completely different instead of the undergrads of other elite schools which are in-between LACs and large research universities.</p>