<p>I got curious so I went and looked it up at NACUBO, my one question is where did Grinell get all it’s money, is it that comprable to wealth and network of Wellesley and Williams alum?</p>
<p>
[quote]
BC might be considered a "liberal arts college" if they don't give out Ph.D.s - despite their other grad programmes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but now we're going down a very dangerous road. After all, if you can consider BC a liberal arts college, then why not Caltech? After all, Caltech has even fewer undergrads and a smaller faculty-to-student ratios than almost all LAC's do. Heck, Caltech's TOTAL student body (undergrad + grad) is still smaller than that of many LAC's. </p>
<p>Or why not Princeton? After all, Princeton's undergraduate student is much smaller than is BC's, and Princeton has always strongly emphasized undergraduate education. Why not Dartmouth? Dartmouth's undergraduate student body is also quite small (smallest of the Ivies), and Dartmouth has always emphasized undergraduate community and school spirit, similar to what LAC's do. Why not Brown? </p>
<p>Also keep in mind that Caltech, Princeton, Brown and Dartmouth have larger endowments than Grinnell does.</p>
<p>What's important is what they spend it on, not the total size, nor the amount per student. Otherwise it just sits there, doing no one in particular any good. (Also, large fundraising efforts often offset the lesser income from smaller endowments.) Spending per student doesn't give a full story either, as smaller schools spread fixed costs across a smaller number of students. It's nice to know that a school has money, but it's like assessing the customer service to be received by the size of the bank.</p>
<p>Sakky - I don't endorse this method, but I can explain the rationale. ;)</p>
<p>For USNews, the cut-off is whether or not the school issues Ph.D.s. That at least is unambiguous and is an attempt to distinguish those with a thriving grad programme from a school like Williams, which is entirely undergrad-focused. Of course, you have the small LACs, like W&M, that have a law school attached - nothing else - but they still count as LACs.</p>
<p>I don't know about that, AA. Again, what about Brown? What about Dartmouth? What about Princeton? I'm fairly certain that these schools offer more than half of their degrees in the liberal arts. Believe me, there are not that many Dartmouth, Brown, and Princeton engineers. And I think it's also safe to say that they emphasize undergraduate education. Even Caltech could be said to offer more than half of its degrees in the liberal arts (if you define the liberal arts to include the sciences and mathematics, but exclude engineering). Caltech is not like MIT - Caltech is far more of a science school than an engineering school.</p>
<p>Sakky - again, not defending what they are doing, just trying to explain.</p>
<p>Liberal arts doesn't equate to lack of engineering. They might consider humanities and social sciences (i.e. BAs) only to be liberal arts; perhaps a Ph.D. in classics would not count towards the degrees. As you said, it depends on how you define liberal arts - my guess is that it's more of "arts," as in bachelor of. Not sure how the distinction is drawn.</p>
<p>Yeah, exactly, but still, that leaves the question of why not Brown? Why not Dartmouth? Again, no matter what definition of liberal arts you use, I'm fairly certain that Brown and Dartmouth would qualify. </p>
<p>Look AA, believe me, I am WELL aware of the supposed USNews definition of a LAC. I've just never agreed that it should be so, and in particular, I've always wondered why certain schools are classified the way they are. Harvey-Mudd, for example, is almost exclusively an engineering and science school. For example, according to their own website "the chances are about 99 percent that you would major in a math or science field at [Harvey Mudd]". Yet, Mudd is classified as a LAC. Why? As pointed out by mini, Bryn Mawr offers doctorates (in fact, the first women's school to offer a doctorate). Yet they're a LAC. Why?</p>
<p>The point is, there seems to be no hard and fast rule about what exactly is a LAC and what isn't. Certain schools that offer doctorates, like Bryn Mawr, are classified as LAC's. Others, like Brown, are not classified as LAC's. Certain schools that are mostly engineering/science schools, like Harvey Mudd, are classifed as LAC's. Others, like Caltech, are not classified as LAC's. It seems to me that they're just making it up as they go along.</p>
<p>I think Harvey Mudd is classified as an LAC to keep it with its Claremont compatriots. But in reality, its more like Caltech than Pomona. Same thing with Bryn Mawr, since all of the other former Seven Sisters are considered LACs and their doctoral program isnt huge.</p>