<p>I am an international student who will attend an Lac this year. I think I understand the differences lie between the educational philosophy of Universitis and Lacs. I love lacs though they are commonly not that famous compared with Us. But some people say that lacs are not the place for stuying science since they lack systematical training and science majors require much less courses. Is that really the case?</p>
<p>i dunno, but i heard carleton was good in the sciences, especially for women.</p>
<p>You can learn science at either an LAC or a research university. The advantage of an LAC is that you will probably have smaller courses and more individual attention from professors. Both LACs and universities offer general overview science courses, but the advantage of research universities is that they usually offer a wider variety of specialized and in-depth courses as well.</p>
<p>Plenty of top scientists got their undergrad educations at LACs. Either coption can work just fine. It's more a case of personal preference.</p>
<p>Not only do larger universities have more specialized courses, but they also have more research oppurtunities and often a better intern/co-op program (there are exceptions, I'm just speaking in general.) There will be more people trying to get that research but the sheer number of opportunities you'll have will make up for that difference. That's not to say that a LAC is not right for someone studying the sciences, just that you need to be very careful when looking at each specific one to make sure they have what you'll need. Ask a lot of questions about the school. Also, there may be some places that you could go to the LAC for two years and then a major university for two; I think I've heard of those programs but can't name one off the top of my head.</p>
<p>Universities do have more research opportunities, but since they have so many more kids, a smaller percentage of those kids actually get to take advantage of those opportunities. And there's less accessible help in finding outside opportunities. There is also the issue of mentorship, which is more widely available in a smaller environment. When we asked an Ivy League college president to recommend a school for our top performing daughter interested in science, the answer was: "not (my school)" The suggestions for best opportunity and mentorship were Haverford, Carleton and Reed, all of which have superb science facilities. Science is increasingly becoming a focus for LACs, so you will find top facilities at many of them. Even many of the lesser known schools (see "Colleges That Change Lives") have exceptional records of getting kids into medical school and PhD programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Universities do have more research opportunities, but since they have so many more kids, a smaller percentage of those kids actually get to take advantage of those opportunities.
[/quote]
Additionally, many of these research opportunities go to graduate students in universities. In LACs, there aren't any graduate students (or many fewer graduate students), so the research opportunities that exist go to undergraduates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Additionally, many of these research opportunities go to graduate students in universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Grad students have their own research opportunities, but that doesn't preclude undergrads. I mean, look at MIT's UROP (undergraduate research opportunities program). It's specifically for undergrads, and has its own funding. And 80% of undergrads participate in it at least once.</p>
<p>LACs don't preclude doing interesting science research by any means. But the equally pervasive myth that research universities are inherently worse for undergrads because they have grad students and larger student bodies is irritating.</p>
<p>You have to be more driven to find the opportunities at a large university, but if you are there will be more available. Large universities let you make whatever you want to out of yourself, which is something that I like.</p>
<p>In the sciences, you are going to go to grad school anyway. A good undergraduate program in your preferred field at a decent LAC can get you there just fine.</p>
<p>The purpose of a liberal arts education is to discover what you are good at, interested in and passionate about. It is not a technical school where you go to learn only what you have predetermined is your chosen field. The same is true for a university. Any work in science these days will require graduate studies - you can apply to graduate schools from either a LAC or a University.</p>
<p>The biggest advantage of research universities is the depth and breadth of the courses. LAC's simply don't offer many courses. If you like animal physiology, you might be able to take 1-2 courses on it at a LAC. At a research university, for example Cornell, you will have many more courses (Cornell has around 19 courses specifically labelled as animal physiology and many more courses with AP components). In both words, you will attain a much deeper understanding whereas at a LAC you've just scratched the surface.</p>
<p>Interestingly, norcalguy, both the LAC kids and the university kids will end up in the same graduate programs side by side. I think the school that works best for you depends on who you are and what you need. Great opportunities are available at universities, but you have to know what you want and go get it. LACs permit you to figure out what you want, get mentored, and find your way. And they have great research opportunities as well. There really is no one right answer for all kids, different strokes and all. And as I said, both groups of kids end up at the same destination.</p>
<p>I think outcome statistics are worth noting. The data show that LACs do as well as the big Us at preparation for grad school in the sciences. Undergrads do all the research at LACs.</p>
<p>Percentage of grads getting PhDs
Academic field: All Engineering, Hard Science, and Math</p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database</p>
<p>Note:
Does not include colleges with less than
1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 34% California Institute of Technology<br>
2 24% Harvey Mudd College
3 16% Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
4 10% Reed College<br>
5 9% Rice University
6 8% Swarthmore College<br>
7 8% Princeton University<br>
8 7% Carleton College<br>
9 7% New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology<br>
10 7% University of Chicago<br>
11 7% Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute<br>
12 7% Case Western Reserve University
13 6% Harvard University<br>
14 6% Carnegie Mellon University<br>
15 6% Johns Hopkins University<br>
16 6% Haverford College<br>
17 6% Grinnell College<br>
18 6% Cornell University, All Campuses<br>
19 5% Kalamazoo College<br>
20 5% Stanford University
21 5% Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
22 5% Yale University
23 5% Cooper Union<br>
24 5% Oberlin College
25 5% Lawrence University
26 5% Bryn Mawr College<br>
27 5% Williams College<br>
28 5% Pomona College<br>
29 4% Colorado School of Mines<br>
30 4% Bowdoin College
31 4% Earlham College
32 4% Brown University<br>
33 4% University of Rochester
34 4% University of California-Berkeley<br>
35 4% Wabash College<br>
36 4% Duke University
37 4% Worcester Polytechnic Institute
38 4% Amherst College
39 4% Stevens Institute of Technology
40 4% St Olaf College
41 4% Hendrix College
42 4% Beloit College<br>
43 4% University of Missouri, Rolla<br>
44 4% University of California-San Francisco<br>
45 4% Occidental College<br>
46 4% Alfred University, Main Campus<br>
47 4% Allegheny College<br>
48 4% Whitman College
49 4% College of Wooster<br>
50 4% SUNY College of Environmental Sci & Forestry</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think outcome statistics are worth noting. The data show that LACs do as well as the big Us at preparation for grad school in the sciences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying that that's true or false, but I don't think your statistics prove much. They don't take into account what percentage of students <em>want</em> a PhD in the first place (a lot of engineers, for instance, don't, regardless of how bright they are). I would be more interested in seeing what percentage of students go on to get a PhD as a percentage of students that want one, or what percentage of students from a school who enter PhD programs, complete them.</p>
<p>Interesting Vassron -- six of the top ten are schools with under 2,000 undergraduate students (a couple under 1000). The other four are between 2000 - 6000 undergrads.</p>
<p>That's certainly one of the more instructive statements. People who are interested in higher degrees in science seem to be more concentrated in LACs, no?</p>
<p>You're right, jessiehl, they don't prove anything, but if the same percentage of LAC and U students go on to get a PhD in the sciences, they suggest that LAC students are not at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>"pervasive myth that research universities are inherently worse"</p>
<p>The data suggest there is not much difference.</p>
<p>One thing you can easily look at on line is the number of professors in a department that interests you. For example, if a department of physics has many professors, this is a marker that it is a strong department at that liberal arts college.</p>
<p>"In the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates, during the three-, five-, and ten-year
periods ending in 2004 (the most recent data available), Wesleyan ranks in the top
ten of baccalaureate colleges in the numbers of students going on to obtain the Ph.D.
degree in the sciences.</p>
<p>According to the 2000 to 2004 Survey of Earned Doctorates, women accounted for
nearly 63% of the doctorates received by Wesleyan alumni/ae in the sciences
(calculated either including psychology or including both psychology and the social
sciences) and earned 53% of the doctorates in the sciences when psychology and the
social sciences were excluded. In all sciences combined (including psychology and
social sciences), women account for a great proportion of doctorates earned by
Wesleyan alumni/ae than by alumni/ae from research universities."</p>
<p>"numbers of students"</p>
<p>Correct, but not for percentage of graduates. Wes is big!</p>