<p>I always wondered about the LACs and the bubble factor compared to Universities. </p>
<p>LACs are supposed to be bubbles and protect and spoon feed their students. </p>
<p>But is it good? Do the kids who go to LACs "all" have a rude awakening at the end of the 4 years? </p>
<p>Is it better that one goes to a University so they are used to being one among the millions and have to fight their way through in life?</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>
I have no idea what you mean by that statement. I have heard that LACs can be a somewhat more nurturing environment than some large Us because they are less sink and swim. </p>
<p>As far as what is best, that’s really up to the student. Some do better at Us, some at LACs, and I’m sure there are some where it really doesn’t matter where they go. Grow where you are planted.</p>
<p>My oldest was looking for a top flight computer science program - most are not at LACs. My youngest was looking for a school bigger than his high school, that ruled out LACs too. He also ended up picking his school for some very specific programs, the size and the feel. He did in fact apply to one of the bigger LACs in case he felt differently in April than he did in October, but by then he felt even more strongly that he wanted a medium size school in or near a large city.</p>
<p>It depends on the student and his/her goals. Also, various LACs and research universities have their own individual strengths and weaknesses that are not defined by the classification of being a LAC or research university.</p>
<p>A pre-med who wants small pre-med classes may find LACs to be more likely to provide that (pre-med classes are often the largest classes on any given campus). But a math major who has already completed the lower division math courses while in high school may find LACs to be too limiting (no graduate level offerings) and research universities’ upper division math courses are generally small anyway.</p>
<p>I have always been and still am a fan of university undergraduate education. That’s what my wife and I did, that’s what my siblings did, that’s what my wife’s one non-screwed-up sibling did, that’s what my kids chose. (We did not tell our kids they couldn’t apply to LACs, but my wife forbade them to apply to the LACs her non-non-screwed-up siblings attended.) </p>
<p>Over the years, however, I have come to believe that LACs offer a perfectly valid take on college education that is less different from the universities I respect than one might think, and that to the extent it is different is equally successful. Obviously, results will vary by kid – some kids will thrive in either environment, some will do better in one or the other, and some won’t be able to take full advantage of either.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, among the kids in my children’s cohort – they, their friends, and the children of my friends – if I were to pick out the three kids who are most completely following their hard-to-achieve dreams and succeeding at it, they would all be LAC graduates. Top-notch LACs, to be sure – Amherst, Wesleyan, Carleton. </p>
<p>One has a job that literally tens of thousands of kids covet, many with far more credentials. (I can’t even say what it is without revealing too much.) Support from the LAC faculty and its alumni was crucial in getting the 2010 graduate to this point. One has exactly the job she went to college hoping she might get some day, despite the fact that she turned down arguably the top university program in the world in her chosen field because she wanted the LAC experience (and she took full advantage of that). The third just knocked the ball out of the park in college, winning all sorts of prizes, and fellowships and plum jobs, ones that HYPS grads lust after, have almost literally been falling into this recent graduate’s lap. (Let me make clear, too, that these are not standard-path situations. None of these kids is going to law school, business school, or medical school, although the second’s employer will fund her PhD and the other two may well find themselves in graduate school in the foreseeable future.)</p>
<p>That said, I probably know more LAC graduates than university graduates living with their parents while they look for jobs. But there have been a decent number of both in that situation over the past few years.</p>
<p>LACs don’t always “spoon feed” their students. I went to a small LAC, and it wasn’t a bubble nor did it spoon feed me. In fact, it challenged me to stretch my thinking and to explore different fields, to constantly learn and push the envelope. I think that my LAC experience is what made me as intellectually curious as I am today, and more successful in graduate school than I may have been coming from a university. I was used to having close relationships with professors and being treated like a junior colleague. I also loved the small classes at my small college.</p>
<p>But my LAC’s administration was also pretty bad, so I was somewhat prepared for the horrible “fight for yourself” administration at my current university.</p>
<p>Both have pros and cons, and it really depends on the student. Universities tend to have a wider range of majors and typically offer some outside of the general liberal arts majors that LACs tend to offer. I think if I had gone to a university I would’ve majored in something completely different than the major I settled on at my LAC (psychology). It also would’ve been nice to have multiple libraries, a larger fitness center, more food options on campus, maybe more performing arts groups or literary groups.</p>
<p>Universities also have a wider range of student activities and more places to eventually find your niche. If a student feels out of place in the LAC’s student body, there may be fewer places they can carve out their little comfortable spot. However, if the student feels one with the student body that can be an unparalleled familial experience. The alumnae of my college are like sisters to me - in fact, that’s what we call each other, “Spelman sisters.”</p>
<p>I certainly don’t think that my LAC, Reed, did much spoon feeding. It was highly competitive and ruthless. It taught me how to be an academic, which is what is was suppose to do. I worked at larger state schools and none of them asked the same amount from undergrads as was required of us at Reed. Students at the state schools are given lists of the questions that were going to be on the tests before the tests. To not give them that level of support was considered a significant negative. I would think that would count as spoon feeding. </p>
<p>There is a huge variety in number of LACs. There are differences between them, and they serve different markets. Most students attend state schools. I think that most Americans would do well to stop and look at what is going on in their state schools. I know in my own state cuts have been made that severely impact the quality of the education that is provided. Do not assume when you send your child to the state school you attended that they will get the same quality of education. TA’s have been cut, fewer papers are assigned and more and more they are only graded by programs. When full professors retire they are replaced with temporary faculty, which decrease the schools research opportunities, and compromise advising and program continuity. It is not just that tuition increases with state funding cuts. The students may well spend 4 years and not leave knowing what they need to know to thrive outside of school, where your seldom told what is going to happen before it happens.</p>
<p>I don’t think “bubble” but I do think LACs specialty - their only mission really - is educating undergrads. You won’t find the # of TAs and you won’t have to compete with grad students for resources and professor attention at a LAC. I imagine some universities have a somewhat similar emphasis on undergrads.</p>
<p>The negative is, I suppose, that many universities will have larger and more resources available to all.</p>
<p>I like LACs personally. And my son who went to one, not only got a fine education, but a lot of focus from the professors, and made a lot of good, close friends. He did not have an easy time in high school socially, so the LAC was 4 years of a wonderful experience for him. He’s the one who has made the transition the most easily and with good paying job offers, over his brothers at the major universities. But that could just be him. He wiil likely do graduate studies at some big univeristy from what I can tell now, but he wants ot work a few years first. </p>
<p>When the match between a school and the student works out well, it’s wonderful. Regardless of whether the school is a LAC or a big university.</p>
<p>I’ve only studied in and taught in major research universities. Never gave much thought to LACs until my daughters started looking at colleges. They were both drawn to LACs, and ended up at some very good ones. I think for each of them, for slightly different reasons, that was a sound choice. I personally would find that atmosphere a little too small, too close, and suffocating, but they find it an ideal atmosphere in which to learn. They are being challenged, the academic expectations are as high as at any research university I’ve ever been associated with (which includes three Ivies), and they’re growing immeasurably as people. They aren’t being “spoon fed” and they aren’t in a “bubble,” any more than any college campus is a bubble.</p>
<p>As others have said, it just depends on the student, not only their personality, learning style, and personal preferences, but also on their academic interests and ambitions. If either of my daughters had been interested in engineering, for example, it’s far less likely they’d have ended up at LACs, because relatively few LACs have full-blown engineering programs, and most of the better programs are at research universities. But for any program in the humanities or social sciences I’d put the best LACs up against any research university, and for some LACs that’s also true in basic sciences, though less so in math and many applied sciences.</p>
<p>I also say it depends on the student.
My brother wanted to go to a university that had big time football and greek life. He thrived whereas I floundered in that environment. I distinctly remembered a professor announcing to the class that he does not hold office hours and to see the TA’s for help. My brother had a professor who said he would only write recommendations for students who took his senior seminar.
I wished that I could have attended an LAC where I would have less chance of falling through the cracks.</p>
<p>DD went to a “Masters University”. It had 4000 undergrads. And a few grad programs and a law school. It was a bit larger than a LAC but smaller than most universities. I thought it was terrific. There were no teaching assistants (most LACs don’t have them either), small classes, and the ability to really interact with the faculty as most departments did not have graduate programs. </p>
<p>Often when there are discussions about college types, they include universities and LACs…but seldom mention Masters Universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably because many of them are “low prestige” non-flagship state universities that are unappealing to the demographic that posts on these forums.</p>
<p>For example, San Jose State has mostly small classes, even at the frosh level. It is large, but that can be advantageous – while the students definitely lean toward pre-professional majors, there are more liberal arts students and classes than there are at many of the small LACs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROTFLOL. You may want to say that to some undergrad classmates who were suspended and/or expelled for academic reasons…or who floundered to graduation with C/C- level GPAs from my LAC. </p>
<p>Some of the students described above who encountered academic difficulties were transfer students from other Top-30 universities with topflight GPAs from their former institutions. </p>
<p>You may also want to talk to dozens of Swarthmore or Reed alums or look at their course syllabi. The ones I’ve seen seemed to be much more intensive in terms of quantity or rigor of expected work compared to comparable courses at my LAC or at some elite universities…including Columbia. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was almost exactly what my summer Harvard Prof stated to my class at the end of the first day when he was almost literally running out of the hall at the end of the lecture. </p>
<p>Didn’t list office or office hours. </p>
<p>Despite being an LAC student, had no problems taking the initiative to investigate where his hidden office was…or to walk in to answer some questions about the class and to remind him that I was paying for his class out of earnings from the full-time summer job I was doing while taking his class. </p>
<p>Despite being surprised and probably a bit annoyed, he didn’t seem to take it too badly considering my final grade and his offer to write me a rec for employment/grad school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps he was just finding out who the truly motivated students were (as opposed to the crowds who show up at announced office hours right after the exam is graded to complain about the grading).</p>
<p>So far I’ve had one son in each type and both have done well. They each picked the right fit for them.</p>
<p>Whether the school is “good” or not depends far more upon the caliber of the school and the students it attracts than the type. Find a school that matches your student in caliber. Then it depends upon the individual professors one gets.</p>
<p>My DD who is at Williams, has qualitatively and quantitatively more difficult classes and more rigorous grading than I or DH had at Georgetown or DS had at a top 20 U. DD and her friends would be surprised to find out she is in a “bubble” or “spoon fed.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Universities make their students use chop sticks. If you can learn how to use them there is a greater variety of nourishment available to you. If you can’t, you may go hungry.</p>
<p>We just finished a tour of 7 schools, almost all research universities. All of them mentioned that professors are obligated to post office hours. I guess it’s a trending thing, like “undergraduate research.” (“Even freshmen…”)</p>
<p>The Colleges That Change Lives rap is for LACs:
[Common</a> Misperceptions | Colleges That Change Lives](<a href=“http://www.ctcl.org/news/common-misperceptions]Common”>http://www.ctcl.org/news/common-misperceptions)</p>
<p>My daughter, whose high school has 5500 students, wants a college bigger than her high school, so no LACs for her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No disrespect to your daughter’s decision, but I must say I’ve never quite understood the “I want a college bigger than my high school” argument. It’s an easy benchmark to set, but it’s far from obvious that size alone offers a compelling reason to favor a bigger school over a smaller one. Perhaps in your daughter case, and in others, there are some other implicit reasons behind that statement, but taken at face value, the statement that “I want a college bigger than my high school” sounds like it’s based on an assumption that bigger equals better or higher in the educational hierarchy, so that once one completes a school of a certain size, the next step in the progression has to be to a bigger school, i.e., one’s educational progression somehow needs to be in ascending order of size, and not just in degree of difficulty. Which of course is silly. </p>
<p>There are a variety of possible reasons to favor large over small in a college, and most of them have been mentioned in this thread. Some people might prefer the wider choice of courses and majors. Some may be interested in pursuing a major that’s typically not offered at LACs (e.g., engineering, nursing), or where even though some LACs may offer it, their programs are not likely to be very complete or well-developed (e.g., linguistics). Some might be sufficiently advanced in a particular field that they will need to take graduate-level courses as undergrads, and consequently need to be at a school that has a graduate program in that field (this seems to be most common with math). Some might think the undergrad research opportunities in a particular field will be better at a research university (though this is not always the case). Some might actually prefer the relative anonymity of being at a big school, where most students don’t know each other, most professors don’t know most students, and most students don’t know most (or typically even very many) professors. Some might think the social life and/or extracurriculars will be more vibrant on a bigger campus. Some might prefer a school that has a big-time D-1 sports program. Those are all reasons, some better than others, perhaps, and not all of them applicable to all students. But the “bigger than my high school” standard doesn’t necessarily correlate all that well with any of them, as far as I can see.</p>
<p>The arguments in favor of small versus large in a college–smaller classes, more professor-student interactions, professors whose principal job is undergraduate education and not their own research or graduate education, more intimate and close-knit community and learning environment–are sufficiently well rehearsed that we don’t need to dwell on them. But I should think those attributes might be particularly attractive to some students coming out of mega-sized high school schools, which can be almost as anonymous as large colleges.</p>