<p>I expressed my interest in Williams College to my dad, who is a former graduate/research professor at the U of Chicago, and he said that he prefers universities because professors do better research, and can teach out of the actual real-life field as opposed to professors at liberal arts colleges who teach (at least a little more) out of the book. </p>
<p>What do you make of this?</p>
<p>I actually just sort of wrote about this. I think for people pursuing a PhD this might be true, but for a great majority of people at the undergrad level access is more important (which is what LACs provide). I actually asked my friend who went to Chicago about this and he said he didn't really ever see the top professors, whereas I (at Dartmouth) had dinner with my professors!</p>
<p>Professors at good LACs do good research, oftentimes. One of the most important recent texts on infectious disease was written by an Amherst bio prof who taught intro courses (Paul Ewald). Not sure if he's there anymore.</p>
<p>I asked a Professor friend about this a while ago. In his opinion, Professors must choose what they want to emphasize; teaching or research. There is not time in the day to emphasize both adequately, he said.</p>
<p>Based on this I would expect that relatively more "big college" Profs. emphasize research and de-emphasize teaching, and the converse for LAC profs.</p>
<p>As for which is "better" for an undergrad, it's hard to say I think. I'm not sure how much comments about ongoing research, etc really help things at the undergrad level. I remember being bored in grad school when one Prof in a survey course kept bringing up irrelevant arcana from his own particular narrow field of interest; I could have lived without it. Besides which, at the "better" LACs the Profs do research, at least enough of it to whet the appetites of undergrads I would think.</p>
<p>Another consideration would be actual undergrad research opportunities, and here again I think the verdict isn't clear. In the big schools, Profs do more research, but they've also got grad students to help them do it. I went to such a school, and did not do any research. Some schools are more geared to involving undergrads than others, I think. At the LACs they may do less research, but for what they do there is nobody but the undergrads to help them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another consideration would be actual undergrad research opportunities...At the LACs they may do less research, but for what they do there is nobody but the undergrads to help them.
[/quote]
That's an important point. The science teaching at Williams is definitely not just "out of the book," and I would expect this to be true at the other top LACs as well. I don't know what your field of interest is, but in physics, Williams has won three Apker awards in the last six years...this is the top national award for undergraduate research in physics. The only other school with a record like that is Princeton....known for concentrating on their undergraduates despite their excellent grad programs. I know a number of students who will be spending this summer at Williams, with paid research jobs.</p>
<p>I know several international level profs at UW in the sciences and their kids are attending LACs.
Profs at my daughters LAC may teach "out of the book" but that would because they * wrote* the book as in the case of her organic chemistry prof.
I wouldn't rule out LACs for majoring in the sciences.
<a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_199901/ai_n8840029%5B/url%5DWith">http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_199901/ai_n8840029With</a>
[quote]
the calculation now done such that size is no longer an advantage, liberal arts colleges make an even more impressive showing. Swarthmore, Carleton, and Reed College rank below only three very specialized science-intensive schools-CalTech, M.I.T., and Harvey Mudd-in terms of producing eventual Ph.D. scientists. This is astounding, because many of the students at these liberal arts colleges have limited interest in science, often viewing the science building as a healthy shortcut between a humanities class and an art class during the cold winter. In contrast, the top three technical schools specialize in training scientists and engineers. Perhaps it is fairer, therefore, to compare these liberal arts colleges to Chicago, Rice, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, and Brown, which have a more similar distribution of chemistry, English, and fine arts majors. Yet the conclusion remains the same: the science students graduating from the liberal arts colleges stand up well in comparison to those graduating from the Ivy League schools and other top research universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also U Chicago is one of the rare research universities that pays attention to undergrad department (that might be where your dad's opinion come from).</p>
<p>Why don't you ask folks at Harvard and Yale whose textbook they are using in astronomy? (Hint, it is written by a Williams professor.) Then ask your dad which college in the United States has the highest rate of publication in peer-reviewed publications by undergraduates in biology? (It's Hope College, at more than four times the rate of any of the Ivies, and three times the rate of Johns Hopkins.) Then ask your dad about the top 10 in future Ph.D. productivity in 20 different fields. (Hint: other than Yale in some of the humanities, and Princeton in two sciences, none of the Ivies appear on any of the lists even once.)</p>
<p>jedipsohn, there are quite a few LAC fanatics on this board (including yours truly!) I went to a big university -- UMich -- and my son now goes to Williams. I can tell you without doubt that you can get as good as or even better education at a LAC as you can at a research university. Quality of teaching and potential of admission to grad school isn't an issue. What's radically different between a small LAC and a big university, however, is the atmosphere: style of teaching, sense of community, in a word "fit". Only you can determine what is the right fit for you. Not me, not your dad, not your GC -- YOU are the judge. So try to visit a few LACs and a few Universities and think about how you'd fit in before worrying about the qualifications of the professors.</p>
<p>'preciate it guys</p>
<p>You don't have to settle for an LAC or a Univ. You can have the best of both worlds by selecting a small university that has a total undergrad focus, eg. Princeton, Dartmouth etc.</p>
<p>That's good advice Alphacdcd, Rice is another university that treats its undergraduates well.</p>
<p>Yale and Brown are two more that I think have very good undergrad focus for a university. But I think the preference between a University and an LAC is something that ultimately is 100% subjective. It really depends on the type of person you are, in my opinion, and what you want out of college.</p>
<p>That is very true, Hopeful. Going to a liberal arts college does not mean that you will get a better education then you would at a university or vice-versa. I personally prefer the LAC for several reasons, but I understand that there are some advantages to going to a university.</p>
<p>My mom attended a top LAC for undergrad, and received her pHd at UChicago. She has experience teaching at both UMich and a small (and relatively unkown) LAC-like public University. </p>
<p>With this experience, she strongly discouraged me from attending UChicago or UMich, both of which she felt offered less-than-ideal undergraduate academic experiences. </p>
<p>There are certainly advantages to large universities (more things going on, anonymity when you want it, etc), but I think that few of them are academic.</p>
<p>I attend an LAC right now and I love it. I couldn't imagine going to a school with so many people. To each his own though, no one college or one type of college is a fit for everyone.</p>
<p>There is absolutely no right answer to this question and to assume there is would be naive. This is very clearly a learning style question. There are things the LACs offer that the Universities dont and vice versa. Personally, i chose a well-known research university, but one that a lot of people have negative things to say about, and frankly im happy i will be going there because the style of the place is perfect for me. That is what you should be considering.</p>
<p>I share alphacdcd's view, that's why I chose Dartmouth for undergrad even though I was acepted Yale ea (non-binding so I took a shot just in case Dartmouth didn't work out, I got a dartmouth likely so Igot my dream school and will go there 09).</p>