<p>
</p>
<p>Yes and no.</p>
<p>Stanford and Harvard (or Penn State and Michigan) are large national research universities. They attract millions of dollars in federal grants as well as contracts with private organizations; they attract top-notch researchers who come to those organizations specifically to do research. They can afford fancy equipment in their research labs as well as much larger-scale, game-changing research than LACs. For that reason, most important scientific studies come out of them. There are far more research labs there; they are bigger; the professors are usually more experienced, and sometimes the experience undergrads can get is more formalized. These are the upsides.</p>
<p>The downside (and this will vary by school, department, and lab) is that professors are largely managers in these groups. They will employ postdoctoral research scholars and graduate students in addition to undergraduate RAs. Undergrad RAs may work more closely with these grad students and postdocs than with the professor him/herself, and they may also do more routine research tasks like literature reviews/searches, running participants or lower-level parts of experiments, cleaning lab equipment, tending to the rats, etc. That’s not to say that they don’t also sometimes do independent presentations and get their names on publications - they sometimes do! It just depends.</p>
<p>Research universities also have more resources. Bigger libraries, more off-curriculum offerings. For example, I was sometimes frustrated at my tiny LAC’s library resources; there were sometimes articles I wanted that I couldn’t get or books they didn’t have. I NEVER have that problem at Columbia - even if we don’t have it, one of the other Ivy Leagues does, and I can get it in 2 days. One thing we also have here that my LAC definitely did not have is several stats consulting services. I actually do this - for FREE, I will sit down with an undergraduate doing her thesis and help her puzzle through her stats. (The university pays me.) Also, sometimes having grad students nearby is a plus, as you can pick their brains about being a grad student and they will help you put your app together. I frequently talk with my lab’s RAs about applying to grad school, and once a year we put together a little seminar for our lab’s RAs about getting in (just because we like to :D)</p>
<p>LACs, of course, are primarily teaching institutions: their professors are hired to teach undergrads, and professors who are successful about getting those positions are passionate about working with undergrads. But LACs understand “teaching undergraduates” more broadly than just classwork. I’m an advanced PhD student in a lab social science field, and every single job ad I’ve seen for LAC professors has emphasized the desire for a candidate who has a passion/desire to mentor undergraduates in research and supervise undergraduate senior theses. NONE of the top R1 applications say that (although they do talk about supervising grad students).</p>
<p>Furthermore, all of the professors at the top LACs (Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc.) are expected to do research. At many of these institutions, science professors will have done a 2-year postdoc before they come to the school, and many of them have teaching loads that are kind of like an R1’s teaching load (2 classes per semester, or sometimes 3 in the fall and 2 in the spring). The idea is that they have time free to do research.</p>
<p>The difference is that one of the primary goals of their research is to include and involve undergraduates. There are usually no (or, in the case of places like Bryn Mawr, very few) grad students competing for their time, and no postdoctoral scholars. They are also expecting to spend extra time teaching you how to do research in their area and developing your presentation and writing skills. And professors at top LACs do often win outside research grants; they simply aren’t as big as the the ones at places like Harvard and Michigan. As one LAC professor put it to me, the quality of their research is the same, they just can’t produce the same quantity that their colleagues at the big research schools can.</p>
<p>I must admit that I am totally biased because I went to an LAC and got great research experience (good enough to get me into Columbia!) and currently work at an LAC with students doing research. But I think students can get an excellent research experience at either one of these types of colleges - it just depends on the kind of experience they WANT. If you want to be in a cutting edge lab that’s doing the newest and best research, and/or you want to be in a big lab that has lots of different kinds of scientists, then a top research university is clearly the place for that. Also, if you have a more “obscure” interest like neuroscience or astrophysics or nuclear engineering, you’re unlikely to find that at a small LAC. But if you want close relationships with professors and a lot of personal attention and invested time in the quality of your work, you’re far more likely to get that at an LAC.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Also remember that going to one or the other doesn’t limit you totally. I went to an LAC in a city with a lot of national universities, and many of my classmates did research at those national universities while still attending my LAC. Also, there are TONS of summer research programs at national universities for undergraduates interested in a variety of fields. Conversely, undergrads at national universities that are nearby LACs can take classes there (like Penn -> Swarthmore or Haverford or Columbia -> Barnard).</p>