<p>Interesteddad, please list a few schools that you think give this type of educational interactive experience. THANKS</p>
<p>Two points. If a LAC or university have an opportunity of hiring a Nobel Prize winner vs a great teacher, both will choose the first - because of the stature it gives the school. Secondly the choice between a LAC and a university depends on the major - particularly in engineering and the physical sciences. My undergraduate years were spent at a very well regarded (top 20) LAC. When pursuing my Ph.D. at a university, I was under the gun for over a year because of my background. I didn't have as many courses in my specific major as many university students had. The requirements at a LAC are geared to developing students with a broader background unlike many universities where students can take more courses in their major with fewer core course requirements. This is very much the case in engineering. At most schools, the number of credits required to graduate with an engineering degree is significantly higher than for the standard liberal arts courses. A student is at a disadvantage coming from most LACs in engineering because the number of credits required is reduced to fit the humanities courses and still have the student graduate in 4 years. </p>
<p>If a Ph.D. is the desired goal, the top university student will have an advantage over a LAC student for a number of reasons. First, top universities take more of their own. Secondly, a recommendation from a top researcher for both graduate school admissions and a position afterwards is far more desirable than from a good teacher. Also the facilities at a large university are far more extensive than a LAC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a Ph.D. is the desired goal, the top university student will have an advantage over a LAC student for a number of reasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is simply not true. In fact, the data actually shows that LAC graduates are over-represented (relative to their numbers) among the ranks of PhD recepients.</p>
<p>Here's a list of the top 50 per capita undergrad producers of science, math, and engineering PhDs over the most recent 10 year period out of all 4000+ undergrad schools in the country. The number after each college is the percentage of grads from that school who went on to get a PhD in math, science, or engineering based on the actual number of grads over a ten-year period and actual number of PhDs. In these categories, you'll obviously see a lot of tech schools; however, the LACs (in bold) are well represented.</p>
<p>Percentage of grads getting PhDs</p>
<p>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>Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads</p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period</p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 34%
2 ** Harvey Mudd College 24% **
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 16%
4 ** Reed College 10% **
5 Rice University 9%<br>
6 ** Swarthmore College 8% **
7 Princeton University 8%<br>
8 ** Carleton College 7% **
9 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 7%<br>
10 University of Chicago 7%<br>
11 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 7%<br>
12 Case Western Reserve University 7%<br>
13 Harvard University 6%<br>
14 Carnegie Mellon University 6%<br>
15 Johns Hopkins University 6%<br>
16 ** Haverford College 6% **
17 ** Grinnell College 6% **
18 Cornell University, All Campuses 6%<br>
19 ** Kalamazoo College 5% **
20 Stanford University 5%<br>
21 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 5%<br>
22 Yale University 5%<br>
23 Cooper Union 5%<br>
24 ** Oberlin College 5% **
25 ** Lawrence University 5% **
26 ** Bryn Mawr College 5% **
27 ** Williams College 5% **
28 ** Pomona College 5% **
29 Colorado School of Mines 4%<br>
30 ** Bowdoin College 4% **
31 ** Earlham College 4% **
32 Brown University 4%<br>
33 University of Rochester 4%<br>
34 University of California-Berkeley 4%<br>
35 ** Wabash College 4% **
36 Duke University 4%<br>
37 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 4%<br>
38 ** Amherst College 4% **
39 Stevens Institute of Technology 4%<br>
40 ** St Olaf College 4% **
41 ** Hendrix College 4% **
42 ** Beloit College 4% **
43 University of Missouri, Rolla 4%<br>
44 University of California-San Francisco 4%<br>
45 ** Occidental College 4% **
46 Alfred University, Main Campus 4%<br>
47 ** Allegheny College 4% **
48 ** Whitman College 4% **
49 ** College of Wooster 4% **
50 SUNY College of Environmental Sci & Forestry 4%<br>
51 ** Mount Holyoke College 4% **
52 ** Bates College 4% **
53 College of William and Mary 4%<br>
54 ** Knox College 4% **</p>
<p>And, here are the top-60 per capita producers of PhDs in all fields:</p>
<p>Percentage of graduates receiving a doctorate degree.
Academic field: ALL</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
Note: Includes all NSF doctoral degrees inc. PhD, Divinity, etc., but not M.D. or Law.</p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 35.8%<br>
2 ** Harvey Mudd College 24.7% **
3 ** Swarthmore College 21.1% **
4 ** Reed College 19.9% **
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 18.3%<br>
6 ** Carleton College 16.8% **
7 ** Bryn Mawr College 15.8% **
8 ** Oberlin College 15.7% **
9 University of Chicago 15.3%<br>
10 Yale University 14.5%<br>
11 Princeton University 14.3%<br>
12 Harvard University 14.3%<br>
13 ** Grinnell College 14.1% **
14 ** Haverford College 13.8% **
15 ** Pomona College 13.8% **
16 Rice University 13.1%<br>
17 ** Williams College 12.7% **
18 ** Amherst College 12.4% **
19 Stanford University 11.4%<br>
20 ** Kalamazoo College 11.3% **
21 ** Wesleyan University 11.0% **
22 ** St John's College (both campus) 10.6% **
23 Brown University 10.6%<br>
24 ** Wellesley College 10.4% **
25 ** Earlham College 10.0% **
26 ** Beloit College 9.6% **
27 ** Lawrence University 9.5% **
28 ** Macalester College 9.3% **
29 Cornell University, All Campuses 9.0%<br>
30 ** Bowdoin College 9.0% **
31 ** Mount Holyoke College 8.9% **
32 ** Smith College 8.9% **
33 ** Vassar College 8.8% **
34 Case Western Reserve University 8.7%<br>
35 Johns Hopkins University 8.7%<br>
36 ** St Olaf College 8.7% **
37 ** Hendrix College 8.7% **
38 ** Hampshire College 8.6% **
39 Trinity University 8.5%<br>
40 ** Knox College 8.5% **
41 Duke University 8.5%<br>
42 ** Occidental College 8.4% **
43 University of Rochester 8.3%<br>
44 ** College of Wooster 8.3% **
45 ** Barnard College 8.3% **
46 ** Bennington College 8.2% **
47 Columbia University in the City of New York 8.1%<br>
48 ** Whitman College 8.0% **
49 University of California-Berkeley 7.9%<br>
50 College of William and Mary 7.9%<br>
51 Carnegie Mellon University 7.8%<br>
52 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 7.8%<br>
53 Brandeis University 7.7%<br>
54 Dartmouth College 7.6%<br>
55 ** Wabash College 7.5% **
56 ** Bates College 7.5% **
57 ** Davidson College 7.5% **
58 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 7.2%<br>
59 ** Franklin and Marshall College 7.2% **
60 Fisk University 7.1%</p>
<p>What DocT says is valid for engineering. Not because LAC engineering students don't do very well, but because only a handful of LACs even have engineering students.</p>
<p>The same list of per capita PhD production in Engineering is dominated not by colleges or by full-service universities, but by dedicated engineering schools.</p>
<p>The only members of the Ivy League Conference in the top-30 per capita producers of engineering PhDs are Princeton at #18 (1.8% of Princeton grads got engineering PhDs) and Cornell at #23 (1.5%). At both Swarthmore (#24) and Stanford (#25), 1.3% of their total graduates go on to get engineering PhDs. Duke (1.2%) was #26 on the list.</p>
<p>Yale came in at #77, Harvard at #99.</p>
<p>Here's a detailed study (that has been posted before on CC) of the undergraduate origins of History PhDs. <a href="http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2005/0509/0509new1.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2005/0509/0509new1.cfm</a></p>
<p>Short take: </p>
<p>If you just look at the absolute numbers, then, not surprisingly, most history PhDs do come from undergraduate programs at universities, and not from the much smaller LACs. Of the top 25 (the "Big 25"), only two are LACs (Wesleyan and Oberlin -- which are among the larger LACs). </p>
<p>However, if you consider the percentage of undergraduate history majors who go on to get PhDs in history, the story is very different: Of the top 25 on that measure (the "Select 25"), 16 are LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm attending a major research university, but virtually all of my classes (except two) have had fewer than 30 students, and most have had 15 or fewer.
[/quote]
That's unusually good for a research university. Of course, by LAC standards, a "small class" is one where enrollment is capped at [url=<a href="http://www.williams.edu/admin/news/chronicle/%5Dtwo%5B/url">http://www.williams.edu/admin/news/chronicle/]two[/url</a>]. </p>
<p>And no grad students TAs in any class, regardless of size.</p>
<br>
<p>And no grad students TAs in any class, regardless of size.</p>
<br>
<p>Bryn Mawr has them. That being said, I don't see why they are inherently evil.</p>
<p>I speak from experience: the small seminar class is not a benefit if members of the class are underprepared relative to your expectations. I'd much rather have listened to my (wonderful) freshman English professor lecture than sit through the discussions we had. This isn't a problem at Swarthmore, but it might surprise you at other schools.</p>
<p>This business with the number of Nobel Prize winners who teach freshman 101 courses is a lot of eyewash. Of course, it happens -- once every other semester or so. And it makes for great public relations. But, everyone knows that the bulk of teaching at even HYPS is done by junior faculty. And if the junior faculty at HYPS is so hot, why do so few of them get tenure?</p>
<p>would you rather get educated at HPYS or AMHEREST/WILLIAMS?</p>
<p>Really, the difference is down to whether you're more interested in how much you'll grow in the four years, or whether you'll end up with a piece of paper with a world-famous name on it. I'm not hitting out at either side, its just a matter of preference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bryn Mawr has them. That being said, I don't see why they are inherently evil.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, see, now we are battling over definitions. In my eyes, Bryn Mawr is not really a true LAC, because it has PhD programs. In fact, its major claim to fame is that it was the first women's college to offer PhD's. In any case, I don't see how Bryn Mawr is any more of a LAC than, say, Dartmouth or Brown. Or even Princeton. The USNews distinction between a LAC and a research university is quite arbitrary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I speak from experience: the small seminar class is not a benefit if members of the class are underprepared relative to your expectations. I'd much rather have listened to my (wonderful) freshman English professor lecture than sit through the discussions we had. This isn't a problem at Swarthmore, but it might surprise you at other schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this, but I would point out that cause and effect are dynamic. Having small seminar classes FORCES students to be more prepared. Let's face it. Students at research universities know full well that they can get away with going to class unprepared, and nothing will happen to them. You can't do that in a seminar, as if you get called on and you have nothing to say, the jig is up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
would you rather get educated at HPYS or AMHEREST/WILLIAMS?
[/quote]
It's not an either/or situation; many people would argue that the ideal strategy is get educated at both. Go to a top LAC for your undergraduate degree, then attend a top research university for an advanced degree. LACs in general are conspicuously successful as "feeders" to graduate and professional schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really, the difference is down to whether you're more interested in how much you'll grow in the four years, or whether you'll end up with a piece of paper with a world-famous name on it.
[/quote]
If the bachelor's degree is the only degree that you'll ever get, then you may be better off attending a big-name university, rather than a LAC. You will have a greater variety of courses and majors to choose from, and the world-famous name is likely to carry you farther professionally. </p>
<p>But if you plan to get an advanced degree -- and let's face it, the percentage of students that do continues to rise steadily -- then you can have it both ways. You get the personalized LAC education as an undergrad, and the world-famous university name on your graduate or professional degree. </p>
<p>It's a strategy worth considering.</p>
<p>"Having small seminar classes FORCES students to be more prepared."</p>
<p>No, it doesn't. It is rare that class participation is a 50% or more of a student's grade, and in those instances, you'll still get kids who either don't care about their grade or tried and failed to prepare adequately. Even if seminars forced students to do their college homework well -- which they do not -- that does not make up for inadequate pre-college preparation, which is the kind of preparation I was referring to in post #48. Not every freshman has something interesting to say about Jane Eyre, or is willing to share it, and this can be true even at colleges with excellent reputations. I could describe my freshman seminar in greater detail, but suffice it to say that even in a class of 15 where participation counted, the professor spent most of the class time pulling teeth trying to get the other kids to speak. It was torture.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with Corbett, however in the world of the well educated I believe that AMHERST/WILLIAMS are held in as high esteem as most of the IVYS. Do most agree with this statement. Also are other LACS as highly regarded?</p>
<p>Actually, Corbett, I would advise just the opposite; if you have only one shot at getting a really good liberal arts education, I would go to a top LAC. I've met far too many graduates of HYPS who <em>thought</em> they were finished with college once they got their prestigious, supposedly terminal degrees only to wind up topping them off at an inferior comprehensive university. What a burn that must be.</p>
<br>
<p>What a burn that must be.</p>
<br>
<p>I don't see why going to the best graduate program you can get into is a "burn" simply because you went to a prestigious college. If you are making your college choices even in part because you'll someday be ashamed to go to a graduate program without such a good brand name, then you've got bigger problems than the universities on your resume.</p>
<br>
<p>If you are making your college choices even in part because you'll someday be ashamed to go to a graduate program without such a good brand name, then you've got bigger problems than the universities on your resume.<</p>
<br>
<p>Or, another way of stating it: people interested in avoiding shameful feelings, or outcomes that lead to shameful feelings, probably shouldn't be basing their decisions on prestige.</p>
<p>
[quote]
any case, I don't see how Bryn Mawr is any more of a LAC than, say, Dartmouth or Brown.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It could be because Bryn Mawr only has 1273 undergrads. Actually, Bryn Mawr technically falls under the University category in the Carnegie Classification system that USNEWS uses. But, they are given a special exemption.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I could describe my freshman seminar in greater detail, but suffice it to say that even in a class of 15 where participation counted, the professor spent most of the class time pulling teeth trying to get the other kids to speak.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right. High school students don't show up at college ready to hit the ground running at age 18. But, let's fast forward and check back with those same kids 4 years later. I bet that most of them can hold their own in an intellectual discussion. Isn't that what education is all about: growth?</p>
<p>Certainly in the business world, being able to communicate effectively around a conference table or in a written report is key.</p>
<p>The more you do it, the better you get.</p>
<p>"Bryn Mawr has [TAs]. That being said, I don't see why they are inherently evil."</p>
<p>CC member mini wrote in June: "I was a top graduate student (highest academic fellowship) and TA at a top graduate school (Chicago) and you'd have to be NUTS to pay $45k/year to listen to or be guided/mentored by me in those days. 10 years later, and with better skills, and more self-assurance and the benefit of more experience, I taught at the Community College of Philadelphia. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my teaching at the community college was better than my teaching at University of Chicago, and I'd bet the same was the case for 9 out of 10 TAs."</p>