<p>Follow the money. Are there specifically endowed programs or departments? Then look at the student enrollment in these. Compare these to similar programs at the same school. Is the number of students in the majors comparatively low? A friend found such a program at a top Ivy, heavily endowed, very few majors, applied with application so directed and was accepted RD, with fin. aid equal to a full-ride. Caveat, kid was actually interested in the area and had somewhat of a track record of interest.</p>
<p>MrsP: Introductory science classes are largely lectures - classrooms and blackboards. Possibily small classes and individual attention are of some advantage. More advanced courses often require lots of facilities, laboratories, and equipment. More advanced instruction means research. This may be somewhat minimal at an UG level; however, it is increasingly important that science be taught be practicing scientists. That means they will need major facilities and the ability to conduct research. A few years ago, it was stated that 90% of the scientists who ever walked the earth were still alive. That percentage may have dropped a bit with time, but this does tend to emphasize the rate of scientific advancement and the advantages of science students being in major facilities. At an advanced UG level, the textbooks are already out of date and it is important not to be taught by faculty who are also out of date.</p>
<p>I would look up the numbers of majors in the departments and then cross check that list with the number of faculty in the departments. When you have a High # of faculty per major, that would be a good prospect.</p>
<p>I think you can do both: apply to some places that have established strengths but also apply 'against type' to other schools.</p>
<p>For example while Skidmore, Vassar & Bard might pop out as schools like your D, throw in a couple of "guy" culture schools (Williams, etc) which aren't getting so many dancer apps.</p>
<p>We did this process with my D's sport, searching for</p>
<p>(1) a school that fit and was good academically--list of 25+
(2) from this list a school that cared about her sport (meaning, coach pull existed)-- list narrowed to about 15
(3) From this list, a school that would view D as an asset and where she could start as a freshman-- narrowed to about 8</p>
<p>The hardest balance is finding a school that <em>cares</em> but still is not as strong as they want to be. (Most schools that care are strong; most schools that are awful just don't care.)</p>
<p>This post reminds me of the WSJ article I read about two weeks ago about the only student in the country majoring in Bagpipes! He not only got a scholarship for that, but other goodies as well. And where did he go to school? Carnegie Mellon ("The Tartans")!!</p>
<p>idad, how would you search for endowed departments?</p>
<p>edad, that makes sense. But what about a student who prefers a LAC to a large university?</p>
<p>FWIW, I don't agree with edad -- there are many LAC's that are very strong in sciences and provide their students with opportunities for research that would be unheard of for an undergrad at a large research institution. I think it is very appropriate for a student interested in sciences to start at a well-regarded LAC, with the expectation that graduate work will be done at a research university. I would never recommend Berkeley for an undergrad interested in math or science, for example -- though of course many choose that route -- but the lower division classes are just too large. My son had dozens of hours of one-on-one contact with his chem prof during class and in the lab at his LAC -- something he never could have gotten at a UC. They were on a first name basis and became friends outside of class as well. Was the chem prof a famous, nobel winner? No way - on the contrary, he was a fairly newly minted Ph.D. But he was an excellent teacher, eager to share his knowledge with his students. </p>
<p>One of the main thing the large research universities achieve with undergraduates in the sciences is washing out a lot of them -- it is to the university's advantage in an overcrowded department to weed out a large segment of the students... it is not necessarily to the student's advantage to be thrust into such a competitive environment.</p>
<p>When I'm looking at schools with my D, we look for clues on their websites as to what my D has to offer that they might appreciate. As we take notes about the school, we have a special category for things my D has to offer in particular for this school.</p>
<p>Sometimes it comes up front on their fast facts page -- If they brag about their new recycling program, my D's interest in that would be something we'd mention. St. Olaf has a new wind turbine - something that excites us. A bicycle campus? A new linguistics program?</p>
<p>We also look at what building is going on on campus. If they're building a new performance auditorium, perhaps they want to build up their music program. A new science building may mean they are hoping to attract more science majors? (Just an example, but not one that means anything to us.) A brand new push to send students abroad might mean that my D's experience might be interesting to them.</p>
<p>Then we look at what grants they've applied for and received. This tells us where their current "push" is. As idad says, follow the money. One school we found has a new endowed chair where they bring in a German author to teach for a year - This school might be looking for students to sit in this class, and therefore would be interested in a student who just spent 11th grade studying Goethe in German.</p>
<p>The last method we (will) use is when visiting campus, to notice when someone gets excited about something my D says. One school we know of has gotten excited and attentive about the fact that my D plays violin. We suspect that this means they need violinists, and would "play" that prominently on that application.</p>
<p>We are not looking to "package" D falsely -- I see this as part of the mutual "fit." No school will have everything D is interested in. By why tote the violin playing to the school that has too many? Or the German experience to the school that doesn't even offer a German major? As D determines her fit, it is up to her to help the school see it that way as well.</p>
<p>MrsP, LAC means liberal arts, not sciences.</p>
<p>Let me try to explain again. For the first few courses in a science, the teaching is largely restricted to theory and facts. Very quickly, even undergrads, need exposure to the practice of science. The tools of science can be very expensive. No schools buy millions of dollars worth of equipment and instrumentation for the purposes of teaching. The equipment comes from research grants. Universities take a large amount of research grant money as overhead and accumulate equipment used in previous studies. The existing equipment and research accomplishments of the faculty help garner additional grants. Most of the manpower using in research comes from graduate or advanced UG students. It is all but impossible for a LAC to compete in this area.</p>
<p>Calmom, I disagree about large U's trying to weed out students because of overcrowding. Actually there is usually a lot of competition between departments to attract students and grow. The weeding out occurs because lots of students take intro science courses but do not have the necessary interest, aptitude or background. This is a common problem at large, low selective U's. I did my share of TA and teaching at large State U's. We tried to dumb down the courses and exams as much as possible but often had 1/3 or more of the students who could not pass. Usually the problem was basic algebra skills. It is all but impossible to teach any worthwhile courses in chemistry or physics to a student without basic math skills.</p>
<p>The bottomline: A LAC can be a great place for introductory courses but is often a poor courses for a science major. The students at big U's often have to suffer through miserable intro courses but then have exposure to more advanced science. The best choices are the top selective U's with strong science departments. There will be some weeding out and dumbing down but most of the students taking sciences courses will have the basic skills needed.</p>
<p>edad, with all due respect I think that you are simply wrong. I know that at my son's LAC, which was not strong in sciences, several faculty members had research grants --while the emphasis is on teaching, research does take place and the grant funds help to purchase needed equipment for the research if it is not already available on campus. </p>
<p>When I am thinking about the weeding that takes place at large universities, I had Berkeley in mind -- and I can assure you that Cal does not have very many undergrads who need a dumbed-down curriculum or can't do basic algebra. The problem is that their classes are huge and extremely competitive - AND also extremely difficult. The environment is not conducive to learning for the type of kid who prefers the give-and-take of small classes at a LAC. </p>
<p>For MrsP, rather than give you a debate between two posters - here are some articles that you might find interesting: </p>
<p>Science Education at Liberal Arts Colleges: Why They Do It So Well
<a href="http://www.lawrence.edu/news/pubs/lt/spring01/steitz.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.lawrence.edu/news/pubs/lt/spring01/steitz.shtml</a></p>
<p>The Nations Top Liberal Arts Colleges
<a href="http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml</a> --
[quote]
On a per capita basis, liberal arts colleges produce nearly twice as many students who earn a Ph.D. in science as other institutions. Liberal arts graduates also are disproportionately represented in the leadership of the nations scientific community. In a recent two-year period, nearly 20 percent of the scientists elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences received their undergraduate education at a liberal arts college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Science at Liberal Arts Colleges:
A Better Education?
<a href="http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf</a></p>
<p>Liberal Arts Colleges
as Preparation for a Career in Science
<a href="http://www.rbs0.com/college.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.rbs0.com/college.htm</a></p>
<p>The LAC's that seem to be the strongest in terms of producing future scientific leaders are Reed, Carleton, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Haverford, & Oberlin -- that is, these schools all have 10% or more of their undergraduates go on to earn Ph.D's in science.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Calmom. I would add Williams as having an excellent science program and top-notch facilities, plus money to throw at undergrads for projects.</p>
<p>I don't know if someone has already suggested this, since I do not have time to read through the entire thread right now....but you might check to see if any of the schools on your Ds list are enhancing or expanding its programs in the areas in which she is interested. If expansion of a department or curriculum is occuring, there could very well be an increase in the percentage of acceptances in that particular department as compared to the school as a whole.</p>
<p>Calmon: I don't think it is any surprise that some very elite LAC's produce students who go on to get Ph.D.'s in the sciences. The National Science Foundation (<a href="http://www.nsf.gov%5B/url%5D">www.nsf.gov</a>) provides very detailed statistics about science education. 15% of doctoral scientists received their baccalaurette degrees from LAC's. Although the total is small, some LAC's do better than the research U's when we look at the ratio of enrolled students. No big surprise. The elite LAC's are starting with the brightest, most motivated students. It is not reasonable to make a direct comparison which would include State U's with many marginal students, very high acceptance rates, and graduation rates that are often less than 50%. To draw any conclusions I think we would need to compare the outcomes for a similar group of bright students at the research U's. I still believe the facilities at large research U's provide the best opportunities in the sciences.</p>
<p>Sly_vt,</p>
<p>I would read the faculty bios and faculty/department webpages at the college websites to look for specifics on what current faculty members are interested in. This might also give your daughter better insight into what each college offers and perhaps help her better tailor her essays and questions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still believe the facilities at large research U's provide the best opportunities in the sciences.
[/quote]
But undergraduate students at those colleges can have a hard time getting access to those facilities. It is small consolation to know that your campus has state-of-the-art research capability while you are sitting at the back of a lecture hall filled with 800 students. It is the graduate students, not the undergrads, who will have the opportunity to assist with research, and competition for the few undergraduate research opportunities that may arise will be fierce.</p>
<p>I attended a large State U and taught at others. I never sat in the back of a class with 800 students. 80 or 100, yes. After the first few intro courses, the numbers thin to small classes and more individual attention. I did research as an UG and had many more opportunities that I did not have time for. Again, I think it is a mistake to try to compare selective, elite LAC's to some underfunded State U. You need to compare the opportunities at an elite LAC to those of an elite research University. Maybe we need to compare the science opportunities of Williams, Middlebury or Bowdoin with the opportunites of at Cornell, Hopkins or U Chicago.</p>
<p>My experience is with the University of California, edad. If you think it is "some underfunded State U" - so be it. I just know that my son's experience with first year chemistry at a small LAC was a world apart from chem 1A in the UC system, where a lecture class with 100 people would have been considered small. The worst of it is that I quickly learned at the the UC not to bother going to class -- it was easier just to read the text and seek help from top student in the class who seemed to have a good grasp of the material. My TA was useless -- I'm sure he was very smart, but unfortunately he only spoke Chinese. </p>
<p>I quickly realized that the situation was no way to get an education and I dropped my science classes after the first quarter and shifted to a major in the social sciences, where classes were much smaller. My brother entered Berkeley as a math major and ended up dropping out, also a casualty of the large lecture hall format and the overall impersonal nature of the university.</p>
<p>edad, I know what a LAC is thanks to CC. The parents here have been very helpful. We've been researching them. I also attended a large research university as an undergrad and my experience is similar to what Calmom said. The classes were taught by grad students, we rarely had access to the professors, and the education was subpar considering the prestige of the school. It was very disappointing. In contrast, the LACs we have begun researching often have active research grants, the profs appear to do all the teaching, not TAs, and at some schools, the students are involved in grant writing. At the big U, students were not required to have internships while undergrads, and often did nothing more than working in the class or the classroom labs. I recall a bio class where we sat around the lab 2 out of 3 hrs a week watching others do experiments. It was not hands on. In fact, after looking carefully at the web pages for the sciences at several LACs, we've found some departments are very well equipped. Also, we have begun visiting schools, and one of the LACs said that there is movement between the science majors, so if you are a chem major, you interact with both bio and physics departments and can actually craft your own major based on your particular interests.</p>
<p>edad, Though it has been years since I graduated from college (UC Davis, '73) I took intro chem and physics classes with 450+ students (that was all that would fit in the room) and biochem classes my senior year with 720 (the teacher couldn't bear to turn anyone away so she found another time period the lecture hall was free and taught a 2nd section). Everyone seemed to be prevet, pre med, pre dental, or biosci and we were all fighting for a spot in required classes. Even in the upperdivision classes there were rarely fewer than 100/class. I agree with calmom (my experiences were similar, especially with TAs). Underfunded state U? Hardly</p>
<p>"Underfunded state U? Hardly"</p>
<p>The conditions you describe would match my definition of underfunded.</p>
<p>I don't have any problem with a small number of intro courses with large lectures and study sessions run by TA's. When done correctly this approach works well and allocates resources not just to graduate students but to the UG courses designed for sophormores and beyond. The TA sessions are part of the training of graduate students, but this should not be done at the expense of the undergrads. The TA sessions can be viewed as student teachers in secondary schools. There needs to be oversight, monitoring and coaching by the primary professor. I don't think USNWR rankings and other statistics do a good job in reflecting the quality of UG education at large U's. Before accepting, my D (and I) sat in on several classes. The large intro lecture classes had up to 100-200 students with small groups, maybe 15-20 students for each TA. The level 200 courses were usually under 50 students. The 300 and 400 level courses generally averaged around 10 students. Full professors were involved and I suspect they are required to provide one UG course per semester or maybe per year. Most of the courses were taught by the junior faculty. I suspect this is actually an advantage. The junior faculty members had impressive credentials and work really hard to establish themselves and gain tenure.</p>
<p>I have seen several complaints about class size at UCLA and now UC Davis. In spite of high rankings and/or selectivity, it would appear necessary to do some research and careful consideration before accepting and attending.</p>
<p>A potential challenge in applying this theory is:</p>
<p>If the school is weak, or relatively lacking, in your area of significant interest. In your estimation, however measured.</p>
<p>You may prefer to go instead to a different school that's stronger in it.</p>
<p>The place that has more resources for people that want to do what interests you.</p>
<p>The place with more of your peers who share your interests.</p>
<p>One would have to evaluate the particular circumstances intelligently.</p>
<p>There might be an actual, valid reason why people with your interests are drawn towards the other place, and that reason might be pertinent to you as well.</p>
<p>The example I'm most familiar with:</p>
<p>Our local State U apparently found itself relatively lacking in high-academic achievement type kids, so they offered admission, of course, but also a free ride and participation in an honors program as inducement to get people like my daughter to come. When she evaluated the likely overall environment of the school, for her, she concluded that she'd rather be in an environment with a proportionally larger cohort of academically motivated students. She felt she would be happier and more likely to thrive, socially and academically, in another environment. The schools that appealed to her more were more difficult for her to gain admission to, but there was a reason for this that was relevant to her. In her evaluation.</p>
<p>The very aspect/ area of relative weakness that led them to give admissions and financial preference to my daughter is precisely what made the place relatively unattractive to her.</p>