<p>Based on NSF data on the top LAC producers of Ph.Ds in the life and physical sciences (per student basis) I think you should be sure to consider: Harvey Mudd, Carleton, Swarthmore, Haverford, Reed, Williams, Grinnell, Wesleyan, Amherst, and Pomona.</p>
<p>I would have thought Colgate and Oberlin would have come out higher in those chemistry majors per class ratios. They're two of the top 10 LACs in PhD in Chemistry production.</p>
<p>As of the Class of 2012, the 75th percentile for Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore are all 1520.</p>
<p>gellino, Oberlin was ranked #12 and Colgate was #40. This ranking combines life and physical sciences (so it's not just chemistry), but adjusts the figures to control for enrollment (converting to a per 1000 students).</p>
<p>I think these lists and Ph.D. productivity statistics confirm that LACs are more than respectable training grounds for science majors. -- perhaps even the recommended route... I know some have thought they exist primariliy to train liberal arts students to think critically and deeply (discussion based teaching) and write well, but clearly these top LACs are not unifaceted. It is quite possible that what they lack in breadth and choice of esoteric upper division classes and research projects, they gain in more individual attention and 1-1 feedback from professors who enjoy teaching undergrads.</p>
<p>Williams is great...they just built a new integrated science building where all the depts in science, biology, chemistry, and physics are connected if i'm not mistaken.</p>
<p>DunninLA-- just because more students choose to do their PhD after LAC does not mean that they're the recommended route necessarily. I actually think that students who are conscious enough of educational goals for themselves that they are attracted to an LAC are more likely to want to be a part of the PhD process. One should be careful to equate productivity with quality of training. For instance, success in many university science programs may, in fact, better prepare you for a PhD if you choose, but for some reason, less students from that university are drawn to that path. It's hard to say if that's true or not based simply on productivity.</p>
<p>However, the high number of students who do continue on to earn their PhDs does suggest that they are ample training should a PhD be in your future. In fact, some universities supply the breadth, "esoteric" upper division courses, and research projects along side 1-1 feedback and attention from professors who enjoy teaching undergrads. This is one of the main reasons I chose Brown as a science student four years ago and it has not disappointed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
success in many university science programs may, in fact, better prepare you for a PhD
[/quote]
The other side of this 50/50 suggestion is that success in many university science programs may, in fact, NOT better prepare you for a PhD.</p>
<p>These PhD lists were originally conceived to show that LACs are just as good as universities at PhD preparation. So then when HS students saw this, many preferred the individual attention that small schools provide, so they self-selected to them. It doesn't mean the LACs provide better PhD preparation, it just means that they're doing it at a higher per-capita rate.</p>
<p>I think the rest of my post is pretty clear on that, sorry if I gave a different impression, vossron.</p>
<p>I honestly don't think you have to compromise as much as some university and some LACs require you to.</p>
<p>Flamingice,
I should have made myself more clear. You are 100% correct that Swarthmore inherently sort of turns away pre-med students because it is so tough. A lot of pre-med students at Swarthmore get their degree in BIO or CHEM and then do their gen. requirements for med-school somewhere else where it is easier. But if you want to work directly with the sciences, and do plant research or become strictly a "scientist," then there is no better place to do it than Swarthmore. But if you are pre-med, then you are right... go somewhere where you can get it done in four years without worrying about your GPA to much. Good luck...!</p>
<p>DunninLA and kwu-
my lists of the number of graduates from varos LACs was from 2005, so they probably have been from the class that entered in 2004. I copied these lists from on old thread.</p>
<p>Vossron-
I don't think the size of the department is everything but, other things equal, I think it indicates something positive. Overall, LACs are pretty similar size so when an LAC has a relatively large department, it probably means the program is successful in some way. Students are not fleeing from the program, at least.</p>
<p>^ Some evidence that larger size causes or correlates with success and/or quality of the undergrad program would be instructive. The arguments for and against have been repeated here for years, but we are stuck with a dearth of facts. :confused:</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lot of pre-med students at Swarthmore get their degree in BIO or CHEM and then do their gen. requirements for med-school somewhere else where it is easier.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not true. It's the rare exception when a Swarthmore graduate gets credit for courses taken elsewhere (other than study abroad). Swarthmore has extremely high med school admissions rates. It's not been unusual in recent years for all the seniors applying to med school directly from college to be admittted. Even when you include alumni applying to med school later (becoming more and more common), the med school admissions rates have ranged from 78% to 94% over the last ten years with a little over 10% of all Swarthmore grads applying to med school.</p>
<p>Be sure you are comparing apples to apples. Many schools don't include their alumni apps when touting percentages.</p>
<p>Here are the top 100 per capita producers of science, math, and engineering PhDs over a recent ten year period. The demoninator is actual graduates from each school over an 10 year period offset five years earlier. LACs in the top 50 are bolded:</p>
<p>Percentage of grads getting PhDs<br>
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 **
5 9% Rice University
6 ** 8% Swarthmore College **
7 8% Princeton University<br>
8 ** 7% Carleton College **
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 **
17 ** 6% Grinnell College **
18 6% Cornell University, All Campuses<br>
19 ** 5% Kalamazoo College **
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 **
27 ** 5% Williams College **
28 ** 5% Pomona College **
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 **
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 **
43 4% University of Missouri, Rolla<br>
44 4% University of California-San Francisco<br>
45 ** 4% Occidental College **
46 4% Alfred University, Main Campus<br>
47 ** 4% Allegheny College **
48 ** 4% Whitman College **
49 ** 4% College of Wooster **
50 4% SUNY College of Environmental Sci & Forestry<br>
51 ** 4% Mount Holyoke College **
52 ** 4% Bates College **
53 4% College of William and Mary
54 ** 4% Knox College **
55 ** 3% Franklin and Marshall College **
56 3% Georgia Institute of Technology, Main Campus<br>
57 3% Washington University<br>
58 3% Long Island University Southampton Campus<br>
59 ** 3% Macalester College **
60 3% University of California-San Diego<br>
61 3% Dartmouth College<br>
62 3% Wellesley College<br>
63 3% Trinity University<br>
64 3% Juniata College
65 3% Ripon College<br>
66 3% University of California-Davis<br>
67 3% Florida Institute of Technology
68 3% Polytechnic University<br>
69 3% Michigan Technological University<br>
70 3% Columbia University in the City of New York
71 3% Lehigh University<br>
72 3% University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign<br>
73 3% Centre College<br>
74 3% Hampshire College<br>
75 3% University of Pennsylvania<br>
76 3% Wesleyan University
77 3% University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
78 3% Colorado College<br>
79 3% Bucknell University
80 3% Davidson College<br>
81 3% Northwestern Univ<br>
82 3% Texas Lutheran University<br>
83 3% St John's College (both campus)
84 3% Furman University<br>
85 3% Hope College<br>
86 2% Clarkson University
87 2% University of Virginia, Main Campus
88 2% Illinois Institute of Technology<br>
89 2% Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ<br>
90 2% Union College (Schenectady, NY)
91 2% University of California-Santa Cruz
92 2% Lafayette College<br>
93 2% Brandeis University
94 2% University of Dallas<br>
95 2% Rhodes College<br>
96 2% University of Notre Dame<br>
97 2% Middlebury College<br>
98 2% University of Wisconsin-Madison
99 2% Colgate University<br>
100 2% Hiram College
</p>
<p>Interesteddad-- possible to correct these numbers for number of students in those disciplines?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesteddad-- possible to correct these numbers for number of students in those disciplines?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Be my guest! That's a huge undertaking. You would have to do it on a school by school basis. For example, only about a third of Swarthmore's graduates major in science/math/engineering, so you would multiply the 8% rate by three (24% or so of Swat science majors get a PhD) to compare apples to apples with tech schools like MIT, Mudd, and CalTech were substantially all students are science/math/engineering majors. So the odds of a Swat science grad getting a science PhD are roughly the same as the odds of a Harvey Mudd grad getting a science PhD -- which is kind of shocking, when you think about it.</p>
<p>One of the factors at play when you start looking at PhD production in a given field is how many students at a college major in those fields -- something that tells you about that college in and of itself. Generally speaking, it is hard (but not impossible) to be high on the list of overall PhD producers without a lot of future science PhDs. </p>
<p>You can also see specialities, though. For example, Bryn Mawr is the top per capita PhD producer in Anthropology. Swarthmore is the top per capita producer in Economics, in Political Science, and in all social sciences combined.</p>
<p>Yeah, I realized it would be a huge undertaking, but it's clear you've got a bunch of this data on a spreadsheet somewhere so I was just wondering if it would be convenient to disaggregate the data one step further.</p>
<p>If not, that's fine, but I'm glad you made your post so future readers realize how much information is hidden behind the numbers presented so far.</p>