<p>Mini, thank you for deconstructing this for me. As a non-LAC grad I am obviously too stupid to understand the thread. However, what I do understand is that many posters are arguing for LAC’s using a statistic which is likely irrelevant to the vast majority of HS students, I.e. where should I go where my interests in becoming an academic/getting a PhD will be most supported.</p>
<p>I know many LAC grads who regret their experience- none, however, from the Williams and Amhersts of the world. One can assume that they chose from among the top institutions in the country, regardless of size and scope. The more typical LAC grad who went to Colby or Manhattanville or Ithaca, who did not major in the one or two very strong programs which have a national reputations, sometimes find themselves behind the 8 ball professionally. Not a reason to exclude LAC’s from one’s list, but a reason to consider. There are LAC’s which used to be two year “finishing schools” and are now 4 year institutions- it is misleading to state that such LAC’s offer great research opportunities to undergraduates. Some do, some don’t, some have a high proportion of adjunct, part-time and visiting faculty and the learning experience is about as far away from Williams or Swat as one can get.</p>
<p>So thanks Mini- now I understand the title of the thread. Some day you may meet a graduate of Sweet Briar or Russell Sage who can tell you about how difficult it was for them to get into a graduate program coming out of an LAC with zero research opportunities, or getting a job with a national employer with a degree with zero national recognition.</p>