<p>Recently I was stuck in an airport and started a conversation with another passenger. Somehow the conversation was turned to colleges, so I mentioned that I was applying to several LACs. The guy decided to use this opportunity to impart his great wisdom about the inferiority of LACs to universities. His daughter is at Penn State, and Penn State is a "real school," unlike LACs. Apparently I'd be making a horribly foolish decision to choose a LAC and that decision would definitely be detrimental to my future.</p>
<p>Now, I know that this is silly, but I've heard (less extreme, usually) versions of this from more than a few people. I don't get this. Has anyone else experienced this? Why is, say, Tufts or NYU (a big deal where I live) "better" than Mount Holyoke College or Trinity College? For those of you who care about rankings, Tufts is #28 on the USNews list for universities, Mount Holyoke #28 for the LAC USNews list, and NYU and Trinity are #34 for their lists. What is the rationale behind these comments?</p>
<p>I agree with M's Mom. I know someone who told me that if my children attended a LAC that they would not be able to get a job, because majoring in "liberal arts" does not lead to good employment options. This person did not realize that LACs offer many majors, it is not a place to necessarily major in something called, "liberal arts".</p>
<p>The guy's wrong. Large universities, where the intro psych or intro bio course has 1500 students in it, work for some kids (mine would rather have dental work than go to a school as large as Penn State). Small LAC's, where the intro psych or intro bio course has 100 students, work for others. If you want to be a name to your professors during your first two years, and don't want to be taught predominantly by graduate students, then a LAC may be a better bet.</p>
<p>For those who say that a "liberal arts" major, like English, history, etc, won't get you a job - they're wrong too. Many businesses have gone on record saying they like to hire liberal arts majors - they can write critically, think analytically, tend to be more creative, and are willing to learn the business the business' way, rather than coming in and trying to change it.</p>
<p>Oh, and BTW, Tufts is often referred to, at least on CC, as "LAC-like" in that it has small classes and a focus on undergraduate education. Some people believe that such LAC-like small universities, which can include BC, Rochester, Carnegie Mellon, are the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>I definitely know that he is wrong, but it still seems odd that people believe this. I wanted a LAC for the reasons Chedva mentioned: Small classes, one on one time with professors, a more intimate feel overall, etc. In my opinion, those qualities make for a better education. No offense to big schools intended, but I think that it also depends on what you want out of the school. I'm just wondering where this mindset comes from. Honestly, I wonder if it just comes from hearing the names of big schools more often.</p>
<p>That guy (the airport guy) has no idea what he's talking about. Hell, I would go as far as to say that someone who goes to an LAC is often much better prepared for the "real world." Avoiding TAs is a big plus if you want to learn, and when you avoid TAs in the sciences and math, you'll find that the UG experience improves. It's hard to be taught by real professors at many uni's, so LACs and LAC-like universities are the best bet for that, for sure.</p>
<p>I hear this all the time. Guys like that call places like Penn State "real" because of the sports. I bet he's never been near a LAC or known anyone who's been to one.</p>
<p>there are more elite universities than LACs, therefore the #28 LAC would not likely equal the #28 university, but the top LACs are just as elite as many of the top universities</p>
<p>You do realize that when it comes to higher education, most people are uneducated. Anyone who says Penn State will give you a better education than swarthmore,amherst,williams,vassar,pomona,oberlin,etc.etc. is uneducated. It is just a fact, sadly.</p>
<p>Ok, he probably wasn't meaning to insult you. His daughter goes to Penn State, so obviously he is going to be inclined to like Penn State(plus, he is paying the tuition). Penn State is a good school. I am not really how any of you can compare LACs and universities. It is very apples and oranges. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think it is often that the universities are more "real" because more people have heard of them. It doesn't take anything away from the education that Mount Holyoke college offers, but I would bet more people have heard of Penn State (mainly because of football and the large number of graduates). I think LACs are too small and would be too similar to the size of my high school, but it's all personal preference.</p>
<p>I think they become more irrelevant as each year passes. Their curriculums are rigid, outdated, and they over just simply overhyping the smaller class sizes.</p>
<p>Um, not all LACs have ridgid curriculums...in fact, many, probabley most, just have distribution requirments (which many Unis have as well). In fact, I think the (top, at least) schools most famous for having ridged (and posssibly outdated, depending on your POV--no judgement from me here) curriculums are UChicago and Columbia. </p>
<p>Also, I'd argue that, if anything, with the current college application boom, LACs are becoming more well known, because applicants are seeking more alternatives. I mean, the average man on the street still isn't going to know most or any LACs, but I'd guess that more people who applied to college recently will have at least a better understanding on what an LAC is, and probably know the names of quite a few.</p>
<p>It depends what your criteria are. My wife was a prof at PS for 15 years. Thought that the bureaucracy, class sizes, etc. was a joke. Loves her life now that she teaches at a small LAC. I've worked in both mega- beer/football U's and small LACs. I miss the rah, rah of mega-U's, but that's it. There is no comparison on many of the other criteria. But some students cannot stand small places; they require constant stimulus. Perhaps an ideal option is a small LAC (if you have the money) in a urban setting. You can find professional-like programs in LACs - business, engineering, pharmacy, etc. True any given LAC is unlikely to offer the many majors offered by mega-U, but one can find LACs with the major that one wants. And no classes with 100-500; and no doctoral students getting their teaching experience with you; and usually nicer dorms, more community, sincerity, and focus (priority is not research, grad programs, PhD students). Sure, LACs are expensive. They are not being subsidized by taxpayers. Which is a more effective organization? That's a fascinating question. From my perspective, it's no contest - LAC management is not encumbered by the complexity of organizational politics and power plays that plague mega-U's, and, somehow seeps down to student life. The most important facet of student life should be excellence in the classroom and its integration with residential/student life. Otherwise, why not get an internet degree and spend the t money left on good seats at the games. Better yet, go to a small LAC located adjacent to a mega-U. Of course, this assumes that there is money/scholarships that allow you to go to the LAC. I only make so much and will not pay 45k per year when the S can go to a nearby mega-U. It;s not optimal, but the bottom line ultimately is the criteria that determines where we go to school.</p>
<p>^^It's true that list prices at LACs and private universities are out of reach for many middle-class families, but it's worth noting that many of the top schools (Harvard, Amherst, Davidson, Williams, Wesleyan etc. etc.) are now growing and improving their need-based financial aid packages -- potentially bringing out-of-pocket costs closer to what a public university charges. And once you get out of the top tier, many good LACs also provide merit aid that can drive the family contribution even lower.</p>
<p>froshdad: very true. Many are not aware that you can find an affordable home in a LAC. However, there are lots of 'average' students out there who cannot win the scholarship money or get into a college with need-based money. We make too much to qualify, but the question becomes; OK, do we blow it all on an expensive LAC, or save a substantial bundle by sending S to state school, leaving in reserve money for grad/prof school, an on-going debate in other threads. But that's beside the point. I am a strong advocate of LACs and consider the initial comment of Penn State > LAC as misguided.</p>
<p>Arguements about small class sizes, professors vs. TAs, and research, are slightly over rated. At larger universities, often times only intro classes are small. Because there are often many more majors and classes within majors, upper level classes are often just as small as in any LAC. At a large university, I've had classes with 2 other students, and several hundred other students, and I enjoy the mix. Large classes are a refreshing dose of reality. Sometimes, you'd rather not get to know your professor. And just because the class is small, doesn't mean the professor wants to know you. </p>
<p>Everyone hates TAs on these forums as well. But honestly, I don't think TAs are any worse than many professors. Some of them are horrible, but so are some professors. Whether you go to a LAC or a big research Univ, you'll have a mix of bad and good professors, and the TA can be a saviour for that bad professor.</p>