<p>
</p>
<p>It still wrenches my gut to read this name. I hadn’t heard of the firm until 9/11.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, tragic. But the firm survived and apparently is doing quite well. They have dedicated September 11 of each year as Charity Day, on which every dime the firm makes goes into a charitable fund, originally set up for the families of Cantor employees lost in the World Trade Center attacks, but now supporting a broad array of worthy causes, including $10 million that went to support families affected Hurricane Sandy. A fitting and lasting tribute to those who lost their lives on 9/11.</p>
<p>"[Reed] was highly competitive and ruthless."</p>
<p>What did students do in this regard? There are no curves encouraging competition. If you satisfy the prof you get a B (no grade inflation), though you must work hard to do it. Standouts get an A, laggards a C. Grades are visible to no one (but appear on the transcript that is generally unobserved).</p>
<p>Like a few other posters, the kids I know who have transferred colleges have been much more likely to have transferred from a small LAC to a large university. In fact, I can’t think of any who transferred from a large university to a small LAC.</p>
<p>Reasons for originally attending a LAC included: kids who were playing a DIII or II sport, kids who were nervous about large universities, kids whose parents were nervous about large universities, kids who fell in love with a particular LAC.</p>
<p>Reasons for transferring to a larger university included: major not available at LAC, didn’t like the coach, stopped playing the sport they were recruited for for any of a variety of reasons, the social life available at the LAC was too small, the LAC was too isolated.</p>
<p>I do know plenty of kids who graduated from LACs, who loved their experiences and who got a great education. Nearly all of them, other than those who went to “top” LACs, are under employed, employed in jobs that are completely unrelated to their majors, or in graduate programs. Those seeking graduate degrees are, interestingly, in programs like physicians assistant, physical therapy, law, medicine, business, masters in education… </p>
<p>I think we need to make a differentiation between the “top” LACs, which seem to be the only ones ever discussed on CC, and the hundreds and hundreds of less well known LACs. </p>
<p>My two oldest attended/attend large universities and loved/love their choices. My youngest is just starting to look at colleges, and could I could see her at any one of a number of LACs. I like the idea of a LAC, but I do think they are not for everyone.</p>
<p>As tons of people seem to have said, it really depends on the attitude and style of the student, to determine which is better. Also worth mentioning that these are very broad categories, and there is some blurring between them (The University of Chicago strikes me as a very LACish but also research intensive university). Personally I would think it is best to compare different colleges on a case by case basis and not by these broad, very heterogeneous categories.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have one kid with each point of view. My daughter wants a D1 school, the bigger the better. My son is at a LAC significantly smaller than his high school. He has a group of very close friends with a large circle around them, and is also living in the most social dorm on campus. I think one difference between high school and college is that in college there is not as much of a taboo against socializing with the younger students coming in each year. Also, eight semesters is not that much time in the greater scheme of things. My son will be gone for one next year while he studies abroad, and he has a month over Christmas and three months every summer to get his big-city fix or whatever it is his college environment may lack. It really is just not that much time. I am already sad about how quickly it is flying by.</p>
<p>Yes, John Reed was highly competitive and ruthless. And he never returned my #2 pencils with the full erasers.</p>
<p>And yes, given the choice between LACs and large universities, best choice among the two is obviously both for everyone involved. Especially when generalizing beyond recognition.</p>
<p>
I agree, though I get it. My son wanted a college bigger than his high school. I tried to explain that a college where everyone is as smart and motivated as you are is different from high school, but he still just wanted something bigger. His cousins attended tiny colleges after a huge high school and liked them very much, so it’s not as though he hadn’t seen what the alternatives were, but he just felt like there wasn’t enough density and bustle at even the largest LAC we visited. </p>
<p>Everyone needs reasons to condense the list - I know I felt the same way. I went to a very small nurturing high school and I was sooooo ready for something bigger and more urban feeling. I loved my high school, but wanted something that felt more expansive.</p>
<p>We too had both cases. D1 attended a small school K-8, a huge school 9-12, then really wanted to go back to a small LAC and loved it. D2 attended the same small school but K-12 and then chose a Big U but wasn’t so enamored. A small college might be hard to imagine for someone always in a big school setting.</p>
<p>Thank you all for a nice [not]heated discussion. My D is interested in applying and attending a LAC. I am new to the LACs, so I was not sure about LACs. This year visiting various LACs and Universities, I now understand what LACs do and can do for the kids. I just wanted to make sure that she was not making a mistake in opting for a LAC and not a research University. I hope she will get in to the LAC she is hoping to get in to…:)</p>
<p>As a mom of a Pomona graduate, I’m a big fan of LACs. My son has been out of school for three years now, and there has been no ‘real world shock’ or adjustment. Most LACs provide a lot of internship opportunities and are no more of a bubble than the elite universities. ( I would argue that all elite colleges, LACs and universities, are somewhat of a bubble. )
I wish your daughter luck, tamtiger. It’s a good sign that she has an idea of what type of experience will enable her to thrive. That’s what it’s all about.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the student. If the student is able to advocate for themselves, then I think a research university is better because there a more opportunities, especially for higher level research. However, if a student does not know how to talk with professors and gets lost easily, then they might get lost in the crowd at a big university. In this case, it may be better for them to go to a small LAC where they would get more attention.
Another case is when a students is very advanced in their coursework. In this case a research university is the obvious choice because they would probably hit a course ceiling at an LAC. My friend is a math major at my university and has been taking grad courses and doing research since sophomore year. He did an REU at Williams this summer, and even though that is the best math program at an LAC, he said that he would have run out of courses to take by sophomore year.</p>
<p>Thank you for your wishes. </p>
<p>I was really impressed to read all the posts in this thread. Most of the posters were Professors and learned people themselves. It was nice to hear from voices of experience and academics.</p>
<p>I personally think LACs do give personal attention to the student and a good LAC will push the student to their intellectual limits. There is less chance of failing because of the personalized attention. </p>
<p>The flip side is that the research opportunities available at a LAC, is a step lower than what may be available in a good research University. But again, in the big University, one has to compete with Grad students to get real hands on projects. If one shines in a good LAC, the Professor will put the student in touch with his colleagues in a premier research University and can open doors for the student.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, LACs are good for the shy and less outgoing student in comparison to the University where one has to advocate for themselves much more than at a LAC.</p>
<p>I guess, she did make the right choice in choosing to go a LAC.</p>
<p>Many professors at LACs in the sciences and social sciences are involved in research and publications. Research opportunities are plentiful in the stronger LACs. A lot depends on the particular field and area of study and how much that college supports the particular field, but yes, there is definitely opportunity for research in the best LACs. And you’re not competing with grad students, so undergrads can be given a lot of responsibility.</p>
<p>The idea that LACs are for “the shy and less outgoing” student or “the ones who might get lost in a crowd,” makes me laugh. Actually, though, I think that’s a bit insulting. There is a vast range of personality types at LACs, just as there is at the universities. They aren’t lesser schools, easier schools, or places for students who aren’t able to “advocate for themselves.” In some ways I think LACs may even be more intense, and more challenging, as you are unable to hide in a classroom of 15-20. It’s actually a lot easier to skate at larger institutions and to get by without ever really being known.
Strong students will find their place in either situation, and you can bet there are plenty of very strong students at the better LACs.</p>
<p>Yes, I do agree with your assessment. LACs in my opinion may be the better place for the quieter student precisely because they will be forced to speak out and participate, unlike in a University where they are lost in the crowd. This past year has opened my eyes about the LACs and I hope my next child will end up in a good LAC…:)</p>
<p>My point was that there is a lower ceiling for research and advanced courses at LACs in the sciences. The fact is that the top notch science research is being done at the universities, and it is NOT true that undergrads don’t have access to it. I know several undergrads at Penn who research wise are at the level of grad students and greatly respected and promoted by their PIs even though they are not grad students. Another point I would like to make is that in experimental sciences, LACs simply do not have the facilities for the highest level research. For example, in order to do a lot of research at the nanoscale level, you need a clean room which is extraordinarily expensive. I have never heard of a clean room at an LAC, not even Harvey Mudd according to a student I met from there.
LACs are probably better for the humanities in this sense. However what I have never understood is why people think the presence of grad students at universities is a negative. If anything, it is a positive! I have several friends that are graduate students, they are awesome and many have given me a lot of great advice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because for many undergrads at universities with grad students, the experiences are that the university Professors’ priorities are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Their research & publications.</p></li>
<li><p>Grad students under their supervision/lab.</p></li>
<li><p>Undergrads. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Grad students are also given greater priorities in access to lab/research resources on average from what I’ve heard from students who attended research universities…including some who are alums of your very university.</p>
<p>While that’s understandable because grad students do need to do research as part of their academic program, it also tends to leave many undergrads with the feeling that they’re lucky to even get scraps of a university Professor’s attention.</p>
<p>I got a glimpse of this attitude while taking a summer class at Harvard where the Prof made it a point to literally run out of the lecture hall at the end of the class and tell us to direct all questions regarding class material to the TFs. </p>
<p>He also didn’t list his office location or any office hours and wasn’t too amused when I managed to track his “hidden office” and knocked on his door when the TFs weren’t available/overwhelmed with other students. Despite that, he didn’t hold it too much against me considering the final grade and his offer to write me strong recommendations for grad school/employment.</p>
<p>The real reasons university professors pay more attention to their grad students are:</p>
<p>-- The professors hand-pick them.
– They are 100% devoted to the professor’s field.
– The relationship is effectively an intimate, personal, employer-employee relationship with 3-5 years of nearly daily contact, and ongoing involvement for the rest of their careers.
– Grad students work like dogs, not only to help their advisor with his or her work, but to learn everything the advisor thinks they should. Nothing is more important in their lives than what their advisor wants them to do.
– Successful doctoral advisees have an enormous effect on a professor’s academic reputation and on the reputation of the department.</p>
<p>So how do undergraduates stack up? The professors don’t pick them (although obviously they can decide whom to like and whom not). They are rarely 100% committed to the professor’s field (but if they are, that helps), and only a few of those who think they are really will be. Undergraduates tend to flit in and out of a professor’s life over a couple of years. They sometimes do work that helps the professor; they rarely read more than the minimum assigned reading (and not always that). They expect professors to answer really ignorant questions; they don’t prepare adequately for face-time with the professor. They tend to have lots of other distractions. And hardly any will help advance a professor’s standing in the world.</p>
<p>That said, in my experience, almost every university professor is open to mentoring undergraduates. The undergraduates just have to do some of the work necessary to make themselves look interesting and valuable (or at least entertaining) to the professor.</p>
<p>I never ever met a professor who didn’t have office hours and was reluctant to meet with undergrads. That hasn’t been the experience of my sons either. My biologist husband says he’s never met a professor from an LAC at any of the major conferences in his field. I’m sure there must be some, but not many. They aren’t doing cutting edge research.</p>
<p>I completely agree mathmom. My professor’s have all been more than willing to talk to undergrads. If you show true dedication to the professor’s field, they absolutely thrilled. It also depends on the university. I have heard that some Harvard professors may not be as helpful to undergrads, but there are several large research universities that are known to be very supportive of undergrads. Princeton, Penn, Duke, Brown, Stanford, and Yale are the ones that come to mind. At Penn we have a very large research center solely devoted to students finding research and fellowship opportunities. Undergraduate research is very common and I know several students who have published first author papers at top journals, including myself. These students are treated effectively as graduate students.</p>
<p>Moonchild, you say its much easier for students to skate by at large research universities. This just proves my point. Students who are motivated and advocate for themselves don’t just skate by. They look for challenges, many of which are not available at LACs such as taking graduate classes.</p>