I decided to start this post after reading literally hundreds of other posts telling me how great LACs were, what a great education they offered, and how superior they were to big research universities.
In my view, I think LACs may be over-rated. They get their high number of applicants because of the “herd factor”: high school students tend to apply to “in” colleges and when they see a certain college only admitting a small percentage of its applicants, they instantly conclude it must be great.
I think vs. universities, the following are generally true of LACs:
More of them tend to be in rural/small town environments
They tend to offer smaller classes and more professor interaction
They tend to offer fewer majors or classes
Because they tend to not offer as many pre-professional programs like Business or Engineering, LACs are generally more intellectual while universities are generally more pre-professional in vibe and practice.
If you’re looking for an undergrad-focused, more intimate and intellectual learning environment that probably is less urban, then a LAC is probably for you.
I went to a highly touted large research university. My kids went to LACs. They both had a much more personalized experience than I had. More interaction with faculty, active mentoring by faculty, personal attention on senior thesis projects, more opportunities to interact with important visitors on campus, and better research opportunities. Neither ran out of classes to take. I’ve seen both sides, and think that unless you want a major not offered at LACs (like business, nursing, architecture), they are a better environment for many students.
But the LACs tend to have less cachet and name recognition (especially overseas) compared to research U’s on the same tier even when graduates from the LACs do just as well.
Our state university has twice the population of our town and students take shuttle buses to different parts of campus. If you meet someone who could be a friend you have to be proactive on the spot in order to meet up again. Introductory classes are huge.
At my kids’ LACs they roll out of bed, cross the street to the dining hall, eat with friends, and walk 5 minutes to class which so far hasn’t been larger than 50 students and usually under 20. The profs have been incredibly helpful and approachable and remember the kids in order to offer opportunities. The lifestyle is completely different.
I am happily full pay for them. Others may want something different. It’s all good.
@doschicos To answer your question, I base my comment on having known family members who went to LACs (and to research universities). And from the defensiveness of the “LAC community”. As I said in my OP, read CC. People are always telling us how great the LACs are. I guess my question is why if they are so great do people need to continually broadcast this fact? I’ve always tended to equate self promotion with insecurity.
The LACs tend to have less cachet and name recognition (especially overseas) compared to research U’s on the same tier even when graduates from the LACs do just as well.
@Snowball City You just described Princeton, Columbia and Harvard. None are LACs. And other than "intro courses’, virtually none of their courses have more than 50 students. Upper level courses often have 15 or less. And at Harvard and Yale, the dining halls are in the colleges/houses.
“As I said in my OP, read CC. People are always telling us how great the LACs are. I guess my question is why if they are so great do people need to continually broadcast this fact? I’ve always tended to equate self promotion with insecurity.”
Well, if you looked at my post count, you know I read CC.
This is an advice forum for the most part so of course people giving advice on colleges are going to mention the ones they think provide a good education. That is why LACs get talked about so much here, not out of “defensiveness”. It’s not like people are going to recommend the duds, correct?
If anything, I’d say the Ivies are overrated based on the degree of conversation here. Fine institutions of academic learning but way, way too much hype and attention, especially considering the vast majority won’t be attending one.
So, other than your feeling/hunch that folks talk about them too much for your liking, any concrete evidence that LACs are overweighted?
@exlibris97: Huh? That is some weird reading comprehension you have.
I am equating alumni achievements with excellence. If their general reputation is not at the level of their alumni accomplishments, does that not make them underrated rather than overrated?
@doschicos You make an interesting comment. You state that the Ivy League universities receive “way too much hype and attention” given that the vast majority won’t be attending one. Following your line of reasoning, a college like Pomona or Amherst is vastly over-hyped since, given their size, a vanishing small percentage of Americans will ever attend them.
Also, what about a place like The College of The University of Chicago? Top-notch academics. Possibly the most “intellectual” of American universities. Small classes. Compact campus. Loads of Nobel scholars. And yet is is proudly a major research university with numerous world class graduate programs. Ditto Columbia. How is the academic experience at a LAC superior to that of Barnard or Columbia, or University of Chicago?
@PurpleTitan How would you objectively measure alumni achievements? Is there some metric or statistic? And would you then subtract the number of alumni who don’t do well or go to prison? Should we measure alumni achievements by income level? That would be worrying since a NASA scientist would score lower than an investment banker.
All banter aside, I’ve always been disturbed by the “alumni achievements” discussion. It tends to invariably equate financial reward and wealth with success. Arguably students do the same since an incredibly high percentage of even LAC students seek to go into management consulting or investment banking (a much higher percentage than go into more the more humanistic disciplines).
I think you are wrong. The herd factor applies to all kinds of schools, including huge universities. I think LACs are a great fit for certain kids, and I’m glad they exist.
You’re getting confused, @exlibris97 by focusing on individual schools to make your argument. First, Barnard is a LAC. Second, no one here is saying that all LACs are superior to all research colleges. I doubt many question the academic chops of Chicago or Columbia (not that many will be getting into those schools). Plus, Pomona and Amherst are just 2 of many LACs, some of the highest ranking ones. Are you talking Amherst, Pomona or LACs in general as places of higher learning? Your arguments seem circular to me.
