<ul>
<li> Yes</li>
</ul>
<p>TAs often are a welcome reprieve from professors with poor teaching skills. But remember, what separates LACs from universities is not only the absence of TAs. </p>
<p>Professors at LACs are offered tenure primarily on the basis of their skills in front of a classroom. At universities, publish or perish still rules the day. Tenure there remains very tightly tied not to teaching performance, but one's ability to produce in a lab or write productively. There is obviously a lot of overlap. You'll find plenty of good researchers and productive writers at LACs and stellar teachers at universities but there is little question that priorities are quite different at the two. As EnviroGuy says, "you'll have a mix of bad and good professors" everywhere, but at LACs that balance will probably be in the students' favor.</p>
<p>This thread, though, was not intended to open up the debate of whether universities in general or LACs in general are "better". It was to discuss the assertion that LACs are worthless.</p>
<p>And while upper level courses may be small in large universities, lower level courses are taken during the first two years. As my d said to me, "Why shouldn't I learn in my first two years, too? I'm still paying for it."</p>
<p>And please, you cannot deny that the general atmosphere and student life is very different at Penn State than at, say, Amherst. What works for some doesn't work for others. (And Penn State, contrary to the OP's "confidante", is not the be all and end all, and is not better than all of the top LACs.) </p>
<p>My d would not have gone to Penn State if you paid her. She's happily ensconced at a small school. She's going to be a research assistant on a real research project as a second semester freshman. Would she have been able to do so at Penn State? I tend to doubt it - some kids, who are strongly assertive perhaps could have, but she's not that assertive, and at her school, she didn't have to be. All she had to do was ask. At her school (which is actually a small university), the focus is on undergraduate teaching, then graduate teaching and then research.</p>
<p>For those for whom Penn State works, great. But there's no need to denigrate another choice.</p>
<p>i always thought i would have really benefited more from going to a LAC for college than a university.</p>
<p>i like small classrooms,, and places where everybody at least knows everybody and different cliques are more pronounced</p>
<p>Well Chedva, since you've continued the debate...</p>
<p>"Why shouldn't I learn in my first two years, too? I'm still paying for it."</p>
<p>That's wrong on several accounts: 1. You won't neccesarily be taking intro classes for two years, its definitely possible to take some intermediate to upper level classes you sophomore and even you freshmen year, especially if you have AP credit. 2. Not all intro classes are huge, many of them are small. For example, most writing classes that you would take at a large universities are capped at 10-15 students. 3. Who says you don't learn in large lectures? </p>
<p>"She's going to be a research assistant on a real research project as a second semester freshman. Would she have been able to do so at Penn State? I tend to doubt it"</p>
<p>This is just false. Assistanting in research as an undergraduate is easy, even as a freshmen. All that junk about all the research going to graduate students is misinformation. </p>
<p>"some kids, who are strongly assertive perhaps could have, but she's not that assertive, and at her school, she didn't have to be."</p>
<p>Now you're just continuing the LAC stereotype. If you're not grown up enough to assert yourself, than a big University isn't for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're not grown up enough to assert yourself, than a big University isn't for you.
[/quote]
Without the pejorative tone, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Big universities are for some kids, LACs are for some kids. No one school model is for everyone. </p>
<p>"Grown up" and "assertive" are not the same thing; there are assertive children and non-assertive, non-agressive grownups. And, regardless of what you may think, 18 year olds do not enter college "grown up". It's where they actually do a lot of their growing. And if the atmosphere is not conducive to the personality and learning style of the student, that growth will be stunted.</p>
<p>Different strokes for different folks. Big universities, mid-sized universities, small and mid-sized LACs: they all have their place in the educational landscape, and one need not denigrate one to consider the benefits of the other.</p>
<p>Touche Chedva, I wholeheartedly agree with you as well.</p>
<p>LAC's are so 20th Century.</p>
<p>For my s, going to a small LAC would be like getting dental work...couldn't pay him. Pure torture. That said, LACs are OK for some kids.
Come on...just kidding. Can we just agree that it's different strokes for different folks and leave it at that? No PSU is not better than LACs. And LACs aren't necessarily better than big state universities.
It's a myth that small schools are old fashioned and restrictive. Just as it's a myth that all big schools have huge lecture hall classes staffed by clueless TAS. Black and white. That's not what the world is...
To the OP, forget it. Go where it makes sense for YOU. You'll always find someone who trashes what you do...even if you went to Harvard...rich snobs go there right?</p>
<p>SSobick.</p>
<p>If you have nothing helpful to add to this discussion, why don't you move on. LACs are going to be a force to be reckoned with in the future, like it or not. Perhaps never a big a force as the big Us, but we're fine with that. They are there to educate, and do the best job they can. And I assure you, they do a damn good job at it, many a time more so than a big U. Churlishly throwing comments butt-against LACs with nothing really substantative (We all know what happened in the THES posting) will do nothing to change that, shame your alma mater, and perpetuate some very wrong biases.</p>
<p>toneranger, going to Harvard is something to be proud off. I personally don't think rich snobs go there. It's another stereotype categorically unfair to Harvard. There will always be snobs in every school. (Yes, yes, I know you're joking)</p>
<p>error: reference to THES post was supposed to be a reference to the thread on the Shanghai rankings instead</p>
<p>Of course they're inferior. Division I football success defines a school.</p>
<p>I've been debating this myself too. I applied to a handful of LACs and one large university to transfer to for the fall. I am going to a community college now that has the small class LAC feel. I have never had a class in large lecture hall and the thought of it sounds intimidating. I have asked friends who go to large universities about it and they all say that the class is easier in that environment but I am not sure about the actual learning going on. Maybe it's me but I have also noticed that graduates of large universities tend to talk about their experience there more than graduates of LACs.</p>
<p>cereal,</p>
<p>It's not about which is inferior in the absolute sense. The real issue, practical, useful, and ultimately, the most important is this: Which environment fits you better?</p>
<p>If you think having a lecture in a large sounds intimidating, what about those who say that you do not want to be under the spotlight all the time in a small class environment, where you can't hide? And remember that large universities most of the time have small discussion groups after the lectures anyway.</p>
<p>I chose the LAC because I like being under the gun. For me, it's not about me getting scared that I can't answer his/her question, for me, it's the fact that I learn to be comfortable even when it is known that I don't know, and that I have to concede that others know more than me. Then I ask for help. If your peers are smart and driven as well, yet helpful and down to earth, they'll show you where you went wrong, and can only help you. Sometimes, you got to show you're vulnerable in order for you to learn and become better. For me, I wanted professors to teach me. I wanted to engage professors, because that's the best way I learn. God knows the whole CC board can collapse on me, grab my throat, and stuff pig kidney down my throat all the while screaming "TAs aren't necessarily worse than professors!". Well, all well and good, but professors on the aggregate know MORE than TAs. I prefer to TAKE my chances with the professor than TAs (nothing against TAs! I want to become a mentor myself in the near future, which is the LAC equivalent of a TA). And I like a smaller school, where it feels more intimate. I will never be able to delve into the world of Division 1 sports (yep Dunnin, you're absolutely right), but I can be in an environment where I can truly realize my potential. And YES, someday I want to be in a grad school, with endowments and facilities the size of UF, with the cornucopia of talent that Harvard possesses.</p>
<p>Some students just prefer the small, intimate, professor dominated, interactive, and intellectually stimulating environment. You know, in a smaller place, on aggregate, it's harder for you to disappear and hide. You're forced to grow. Just as a big U may be great for you, because in such a big place, you have to assert yourself and GROW in order to be noticed and achieve distinction. Maybe the big U has a program that you really want that isn't offered in an LAC. IS ONE WAY WRONG? IS IT? NO! </p>
<p>And consider: be it Big U or Small LAC, the good schools always have things in common - either great faculty (in teaching or research), good students and peers (I can't emphasize this enough), good support, be it academic, career counseling, or special aspirations, and good facilities, be it in the form of research opportunities, labs facilities, athletic facilities or something along those lines. </p>
<p>So when you transfer, remember that it's all about fit, then it's all about whether it's a GOOD school or NOT. It's not about which TYPE of institution is inferior, it's about which PARTICULAR institution within those types that can serve you better.</p>
<p>Oh, and cereal, just because they don't talk about, does not mean they didn't feel as passionately about their school as those from the large universities did. Ask them about it.</p>
<p>Apologies for the rant.</p>
<p>Yeah DT...I was joking. I just thought it was ironic how this thread was progressing. Really, would you tell someone seated next to you on a plane that going to a small LAC (insert Davidson, W&L, whatever) would be like getting dental work for your s or d?
Not much better than the PSU guy in the airport I'd say...</p>
<p>Different people also have different learning styles. I know that I learn better when questioned. I "tune out" during lectures. I got my master's in a lecture-based system, even though the lectures were relatively small (30-40 students), but it was torture for me. I got my JD in a situation that used the Socratic "question and answer" method - even in classes with 200 students (Contracts, Property, Torts), I was engaged and actively learning. Some kids learn well in lectures; some don't.</p>
<p>The style of the school may be more important than the size. That's something that needs to be investigated. My d is like me; she likes "active" learning rather than passive listening. She went to Cornell's summer program for high schoolers. Her professor told her that if she wanted interactive classes, Cornell was not the school for her. Cornell is a terrific university and thousands upon thousands of students received and continue to receive a top-notch education there - it was wasn't for her. At the schools she visited, she asked specifically whether the overall style was discussion-based or lecture-based. Some schools were specifically set up to encourage question & answer and discussion classes (classrooms at Vassar, for example, are set up with tables in a circle rather than rows to encourage discussion); some said it was up to the individual professor, no encouragement one way or the other; some said that the first 2 years were mostly lectures with discussion sections. And most of these were LACs anyway.</p>
<p>toneranger, I certainly would say to someone that going to a school like Penn State would be like getting dental work for my d; I have said it. That doesn't make Penn State a bad school - just not right for my child. The PSU guy in the airport, however, was making blanket statements about the value of LACs generally, to all students. That's the difference.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think the academic differences are over emphasized between LACs and Big Us. Most students can deal with either style of learning, and you'll be exposed to both at a LAC or a big U.</p>
<p>For me at least, social issues would be the hardest to deal with. Most LACs are as big as (or smaller than) my high school. On one side, its a tight-knit community, on the other, its oppressively small. I imagine you know, met, or recognize most of the student body. There's only one (maybe two) dining halls on campus. There's less options on Friday/Saturday night fun. From what I've heard, it seems more clique like at LACs. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Big U's can be intimidating. People can seem unfriendly. You come across the, "who cares if I'm nice to you? There's 10,000 other peole to be friends with. Plus, I'll never see you again" attitude.</p>
<p>mom said--
Ignore this guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about.</p>
<p>Who knows what is REALLY the answer to the OP's question, but what is interesting is that this guy - and others like him (say, people who might hire you after college, for example) might THINK this way.</p>
<p>Perception is reality. At least it seems this way.</p>
<p>I'd venture to say that most hiring managers (at least the ones I'd worry about when entering college) know the difference between Penn State and Williams.</p>
<p>And if perception is reality, I'm not so sure that Penn State's reputation is all that great either.</p>
<p>Yeah - if the hiring managers are "you couldn't pay me to go to Penn State " types.
Hey, I work with quite a few PSU grads. Nice folks in pretty senior level jobs.
Other state grads too, Rutgers, Delaware...you name it. Personally, I don't see a direct correlation between pedigree private degrees and success. Maybe in IB but not in most work worlds.
As far as interviewing for jobs, it really depends on who the hiring manager is. Some might feel Williams grads are bit too snobby and sheltered. Perhaps those from Williams would prefer not to work for those folks. But let's not pretend that going to a small lac will open up doors to jobs with the "right" kind of people. Everyone has a different reality...</p>