<p>HYPSM on linguistics: MIT is great, of course. I hear Yale has a strong cogsci program. Really, the only one you need to watch out for is Princeton–only a certificate offered, which is Princeton’s version of a minor plus a mini-thesis.</p>
<p>I disagree with the Columbia professor’s assessment - the % of Ph.D.s in the sciences coming out of the LACs as listed above shows that his argument doesn’t hold. For Swarthmore in particular, here are some key points I’ve gathered from listening to my daughter who is a biology major there:
- Expectations for research by professors are the same as at research universities. The professors have sabbaticals every third year in order to maintain that productivity. That means that the faculty size is significantly larger than would be expected at other colleges with fewer research expectations because every year a large number are off on their sabbatical. The sabbatical system is on par with the top research universities.
- Unlike research universities, where the professors spend the most time with their Ph.D. students, some with their MA students, and the least time with the undergraduates, at Swarthmore, the professors conduct research with their undergraduates because there aren’t any graduate students competing for attention. Swarthmore students are extraordinarily well prepared for graduate school because they have already done research with their professors that most undergrads don’t do until graduate school.
- I’d hold up the equipment in biology at Swarthmore against any research university - there are big bucks going into research facilities at Swarthmore because to get the best professors in the country, they need to give them the best facilities.
- On top of being fabulous scholars, the professors are amazing teachers. My daughter can’t say enough about the faculty and their accessibility. She studies in the Science Center each evening and if she gets stuck on a homework problem, usually her professor is down the hall working on his/her own research and is happy to answer her questions. Also, if she is doing lab work in the evening, her professor is usually there too. To get tenure at a research university, you have to be doing excellent research. You can be so-so as a teacher. To get tenure at Swarthmore, you have to meet that same standard for research AND you need to be excellent in the classroom too. </p>
<p>Although the sabbatical system isn’t as strong at some LACs as at Swarthmore (and therefore the quantity of publication may not be as high although the quality is strong) the LACs in bold on the list above are there because most of what I have said is the case for Swarthmore is the case for these too: they offer professors who do excellent research and excel in teaching. I would recommend that research universities be saved for the Ph.D. The best undergraduate education occurs at the LACs.</p>
<p>Libarts- and then there are the kids who do not go on to get a PhD (in fact, the majority of students in America.) So saving the research university for the PhD is fine advice (although I disagree with it but you are welcome to share your POV) but doesn’t really answer the question posed by the OP.</p>
<p>My S graduated from MIT and it is patently false to state that professors spend the most time with their PhD students. Any MIT student can take advantage of their UROP system (which is designed specifically for Undergrads, hence the U in the acronym) and in fact, most semesters, there are many attractive positions which go unfilled because there are more jobs for undergrads than there are students.</p>
<p>Professors in the sciences at large research universities can be working on multiple, multi million dollar grants simultaneously and they need students of all ages to staff and work those projects. Teaching, research, and mentoring the next generation of inventors, scholars, scientists, and leaders is the mission of these professors. </p>
<p>I am sure the faculty at Swarthmore is, to use your words- fabulous. But to compare the research opportunities at small liberal arts colleges in the sciences to those at the blockbuster research university strains credulity. When NASA or the EPA or Boeing or Merck or Intel or Motorola are trying to award multi-year research contracts the money is not evenly distributed among the many fine colleges in the US.</p>
<p>There are many fantastic reasons a kid would choose Swarthmore over Berkeley or Cal Tech or MIT or JHU or CMU or UIUC. Doing cutting edge research with world class scientists would not be one of those reasons.</p>
<p>I would say that you can get a good science education at the top LACs but if you KNOW you want to get your phd in the sciences then you would be better off going to a top university (HYPSM), assuming that you are accepted into both. Many of my grad school classmates went to LACs – especially swarthmore, pomona, and harvey mudd-- and are doing well. But the education that they received was NOT the same, and they had less of an idea of what they were getting into than my classmates from HYPS. Not to say that they won’t end up doing as well, but they were not quite as well prepared. By junior year, the people in my major who were considering grad school were mostly taking grad classes. Also, they had not been exposed to as many different types of research, especially the more cutting edge research that takes LOTS of government money and grad students in order to do, but which is available to undergrads at the research universities. I also thought that my interactions with grad students at my undergrad was really useful. I was friends with a lot of the first and second years, and they definitely helped with my list, advice re visiting, etc. From being with them, I also had a really good idea of what I was getting myself into, and as such I have not been surprised by grad school (many people are!)</p>
<p>In addition, the networking is very different at the LACs vs. the research universities. Networking is pretty important in the sciences, and more important than perhaps it should be. I am pretty close with my professors from undergrad-- when one of them came up to boston for a meeting, he ignored all of the other famous people and instead spent a long time talking to me and my friends from undergrad. Many many of my interviews for grad school were with students my professors, which meant that their recommendation letters carried a lot of weight, and there were things in common to talk about. If you have no grad students and post-docs, you have no science progeny. </p>
<p>With all that being said, you clearly can get a great science education at an LAC and succeed in grad school, and there are many reasons to decide to go that route. But as blossom said, doing cutting edge research with world class scientists is not one of those reasons.</p>
<p>Excellent post, Blossom.</p>
<p>The right LAC can be an excellent choice for a prospective science major who believes s/he’d thrive at a smaller college. And there will be research opportunities, no doubt good ones, at LACs with strong science programs. Just not the same kinds of research opportunities as at major research universities.</p>
<p>ec1234: Not as well prepared in what way? Students at LACs who intend to go on to grad school may not be taking grad classes in their junior year, but they are taking the equivalent in their own departments or else they wouldn’t be admitted to grad programs in the first place. I suppose being exposed to a large research environment may be a new experience at first, but they have done research before and the processes of research are nothing new. Simply being familiar with the existing environment is most of what you seem to be saying is the advantage of going to a university for undergrad, which I suppose is useful, but I doubt is anything a grad student couldn’t get used to after a couple of weeks or less. There may be some networking in undergrad, you may get to know a professor or two well, but when I attended a conference with my professor everything was about her fellow students and professors from graduate school, which is clearly where you would get more networking as they are in your exact field. Undergrad networking may be somewhat useful for getting into grad school, but clearly it’s not a problem for LACs, based on the numbers.</p>
<p>blossom: You say that undergraduate students can get research positions, which I don’t doubt, but does that mean they are actually working alongside the professor, or are supervised in their task by grad students? I agree that universities have more and “cutting edge” research (though technically, all research is by definition new to its field, just perhaps doesn’t have immediate practical application, which will still take years to develop) but for an undergrad, it is not necessary for them to be able to go on to be successful grad students and beyond, though perhaps it’s a nice introduction. But you say professors can be working on multiple high-profile projects at once, while having to teach, and supervising grad students, and all the other duties required of professors, which seems to leave fairly little time to sit aside and talk with undergrads.</p>
<p>i mean well prepared in several contexts. The most important is knowing what you are getting into, and the types of lab dynamics, etc. These cannot be replicated without grad students, postdocs, R01s, etc. 10 weeks during the summer of being in a lab does not tell you the same thing, either. The undergrads at my school were treated like mini-grad students-- we had our own projects and we had to give lab meetings, etc. Going to grad school was not a big change. But from my classmates I have gathered that it is a pretty big change for students without the same sorts of experiences. </p>
<p>Re grad classes-- they do not have the same level of classes at places without grad students, because the students wouldn’t be the same. Also the professors research experiences do not cover as many topics, as many topics are just not supportable on the types of grants that professors are able to get at LACs. Taking grad classes in undergrad was not required for acceptance to grad school, and many people in my class even who went to undergrad at research universities did not. But the people who did were better prepared for classes in grad school. And you could tell who was and who wasn’t. That doesn’t effect your eventual career, because classes don’t really matter and almost everyone caught up, but it was definitely an advantage the first semester or so. </p>
<p>And regarding your rebuttal to blossom-- at many research universities the professors are very accessible, but no, they will not be in lab with you teaching you techniques. And thats a good thing-- most labs get up in arms when the PIs try to come back to lab, since they haven’t done lab work in quite some time. You are learning how to interact with grad students and postdocs, and figure out how to learn the techniques that you need- which are all valuable skills to have going into grad school. If you expect the professor to give you the sorts of technical help that you are implying is good, then you would be in for a sorry surprise once you get to grad school. Having an accessible professor is a good thing- but many, even at the research universities, are quite accessible. But there is no reason that an experienced grad student or post doc can’t teach you lab techniques.</p>
<p>bottom line - you may want to consider Wesleyan which is a LAC with doctoral programs in bio, molecular-bio-bio-chem, chemistry, physics and math. Or, go with Dartmouth which is a research university that still identifies itself as a LAC. :)</p>
<p>Seriously, or you could take ec1234’s advice with a grain of salt:
</p>
<p>Williams has amazing science facilities and faculty as well as a very strong math faculty. I would especially recommend Williams for geosciences.</p>
<p>I would recommend Smith for women interested in engineering and science. The support for women in the sciences is outstanding at women’s colleges, but only Smith has engineering.</p>
<p>Well again, everything you mentioned sounds like it could be learned by a grad student in a few weeks to maybe a semester, which is hardly a reason to not attend a LAC. I agree professor research at LACs does not cover as many topics, but at the undergrad level, especially if you plan on going to grad school, it’s more about learning the process of research and knowing how to produce meaningful results, which can be done regardless of the specific topic. Plus, how often do undergrads take advantage of the wide range of topics? You choose one, maybe a few if you’re fickle, and stick with it for a long period of time, not bounce around, else you don’t learn enough to do anything useful. </p>
<p>Regarding the classes not being the same, this is purely because of no grad students? There are colleges where the students are high enough level, especially since they are specializing, where it doesn’t matter, and simply having “grad” students in your class does not make it better.</p>
<p>You seem to be implying here that it’s actually good that the professor doesn’t come to the lab, that he would get in the way? I suppose that makes sense for large research labs where the grad students and post docs do most of the lab work, and I have no problem with them teaching undergrad research students, but I don’t see how that’s a necessarily good thing. You seem to be suggesting that if the professor worked with the undergrad students, as they more generally do so at LACs, then they will somehow suffer a disadvantage when they go to grad school where that does not occur. Professors can easily teach the techniques necessary for grad school, especially at LACs where they work more closely alongside the students, and getting used to that not occurring in grad school is trivial.</p>
<p>To make an unrelated note, I somehow managed to omit Reed from my earlier list of LACs offering linguistics majors. Consider this a humble postscript.</p>