<p>It’s a stretch to include Amherst in the list of LACs with particularly strong sciences. Perhaps because the students their “open curriculum” attracts, Amherst has relatively few science and math majors compared to the top science LACs. And, by their own admission, their science facilities are obsolete and sub-standard.</p>
<p>Likewise, Vassar is a fine school, but I have never seen anything (% of science majors, repuation, future science PhDs, etc.) to suggest that Vassar is a a notably strong science school. It’s reputation is just the opposite.</p>
<p>I have seen specifics, in one or more ways, to suggest that Swarthmore, Williams, Grinnell, Carleton, Haverford, and Wesleyan have strong science and/or bio programs.</p>
<p>Two statistical indicators I would compile for all LACs would be the percentage of science/math/engineering majors and the percentage of overall graduates going on to get a PhD in a science field. Both measures will tell you a bit about types of students that each school attracts and the institutional focus on science and math. The very top science oriented LACs rival MIT for the percentage of science majors going on to get PhDs in science.</p>
<p>I debated Amherst. Vassar has made a significant push and has a respectable gaggle of pre-meds and does well with med school acceptance. I’m less sure about research scientists and PhD production.</p>
<p>Recently I know of four kids happy with their science education:</p>
<p>WashU – job at CDC.
Williams: PhD program at Harvard.
Pomona: PhD program at MIT.
Barnard: PhD program at Emory.</p>
<p>I know “one swallow does not make a summer” and that anecdotal evidence is weak, but I thought I’d pass this along. This young woman from Barnard wanted to return to Atlanta, where she was from, so Emory was her top choice.</p>
<p>With strong stats, a number of the women’s schools will likely be matches for your D.</p>
<p>Here’s some info. on sciences at Mount Holyoke:</p>
<p>Nearly a third of MHC students major in science or mathematics</p>
<p>Of 51 full-time science faculty members, 57 percent are women. (While this stat doesn’t say much about the academic level of the sciences, it does indicate strong support for women in the sciences, as well as significant role models)</p>
<p>From 2000 to 2005, Mount Holyoke science faculty were awarded more NSF grant money than any other leading liberal arts college</p>
<p>From 1966 to 2004, according to the NSFs Survey of Earned Doctorates, Mount Holyoke graduated more women than any other liberal arts college who went on to get U.S. doctorates in the physical and life sciences (356 and 109, respectively). This puts Mount Holyoke in the top 2 percent of all colleges and universities–even major research universities with at least double the enrollment and faculty. (I know this is an old stat…but shows historic importance of sciences at MHC.)</p>
<p>Thanks for the info. D1 was admitted to MH, decided not to attend, so we have visited. Beautiful campus. Zero merit aid, though (not a deciding factor, but it did play into her decision). I think D1 would have enjoyed it, but somehow I have trouble seeing D2 at a women’s college. She has so little patience for the kind of drama that goes on in a group of all women. Doubt I can even get her to visit, honestly. Good info on Vassar, it was on her prelminary (long) list.</p>
<p>Granted, while Wesleyan does have graduate programs in the sciences, which most LACs lack, Wesleyan leads the pack for federal science funding by far, as well as being #1 among LACs for faculty publication and is the only liberal arts college with an NIH predoctoral training program. </p>
<p>Wesleyan offers a unique opportunity of professor and research access of an LAC (which it is), but the advanced research of a university. Wesleyan is one of three schools in Connecticut (Yale and UConn the other two) involved in the CT Stem Cell Initiative, a 10 year, $100 million program.</p>
<p>I am somewhat surprised and mostly confused about the logic that’s applied to selecting an “LAC” when the applicant “knows” that they want to do “math” or “science” or “engineering” or “computer science” as a profession – at a research level. If the passion is already there, and the career goals are clear then an LAC is rarely the right choice for any of these disciplines. Inherently LACs serve to “prepare” students for a career in the sciences (and biology certainly rates very high as a field of choice), while serving to provide other educational dimensions (in the liberal arts, music, art, etc.), and a safety valve if the passion changes. Many many students are unsure of their eventual career goals when they enter college, and LACs are a very good place to prepare, to figure it out.</p>
<p>What matter most in science for someone who knows that they want to work at the highest level: (1) like minded peers, with passion at the same highest level, (2) faculty engaged with current research and deeply connected with industry and other top researchers, (3) research facilities and graduate programs. All this is summed up as a “research center of excellence”.</p>
<p>LACs inherently have a small faculty in any of the science disciplines. They focus on teaching, and not research. The LAC at best is a minor research center in comparison to the colleges and universities with “research center” focus.</p>
<p>So there is a reason why there isn’t an ordered list of LACs in terms of biology excellence. It would vary significantly from year to year, and it would inherently be based on subjective criteria.</p>
<p>For the passionate biology student seeking a “small” college there is of course Caltech. For one who’ll thrive in a larger environment there’s MIT. And among universities, there are always the Stanfords, Harvards, etc. And for the majority many of the State flagships are well regarded “research centers” in biology.</p>
<p>In the end the passionate biology student who starts off at a “research center” college/university will have an advantage over one who gets there by way of a LAC.</p>
<p>So the list in post #2 looks right to me. I would add Davidson. In any case it’s subjective.</p>
<p>that they want to do “math” or “science” or “engineering” or “computer science” as a profession – at a research level. If the passion is already there, and the career goals are clear then an LAC is rarely the right choice for any of these disciplines</p>
<p>I will agree that technical fields like computer science or engineering are rarely offered at the undergraduate level in a liberal arts college-
However, at some LACs, the rigor required to receive an undergrad degree can be excellent preparation for further study.
At Reed for example- all graduates have taken a junior qualifying exam, and have written & published a senior thesis, as well as defended it to an orals committee.</p>
<p>In general, that sort of opportunity is only offered at the graduate level, in larger universities.</p>
<p>A good point. It is fairly common at selective LACs for undergrads to write a thesis, including those in the sciences. That opportunity will most likely not present itself at a large research university. Therefore, a LAC science grad might have an advantage over a university science grad.</p>
<p>Many years the top physics student in the country is from Williams. (I know that’s not biology, but I’m contesting the idea that a research university is superior for the sciences.)</p>
<p>And I am not putting Williams ahead of the pack, though it does have wonderful research opportunities for UG’s.</p>
<p>I think the best environment is the one that develops the student. A student will thrive where s/he feels comfortable.</p>
<p>This sort of strays away from what I was looking for in the thread, but I will say that I went to a large research university (highly ranked state flagship), although I did not major in a science field. It was a very impersonal experience, almost an assembly line in a lot of ways. I was not the most social kid, and it is very easy to stay in the background at a large university if you want to. I excelled academically, with very good grades and excellent grad school admissions test scores. But socially (and with my professors) I did not form close relationships. A few dorm mates that are still my friends, but really no long term relationships in my area of study or with professors. It was really lonely in a lot of ways. I think an LAC actually would have been a much better fit for me, with a smaller community. D2 is much like me… and I want her to have a better college experience than I had.</p>
<p>In the end, she may pick a larger university (or a mid-sized one) for the very reasons listed by fogcity. But I want to try to get some good LAC choices on the list, too.</p>
<p>I agree with mythmom, that a student will thrive where he or she feels most comfortable. My D. selected an LAC (Swarthmore) to study science, in part because she knew she wanted to go on to grad school and she wanted the well rounded undergrad education that an LAC can offer.</p>
<p>Now, in her freshman year, she is thriving and has already been offered an opportunity to be involved in scientific research. Maybe it isn’t the most cutting edge research possible (I really don’t know anything about it), but it is research and everyone has to start somewhere.</p>
<p>In addition to a large natural area called “The Arboretum” just outside of town, the large central greenspace of the college and town, Tappan Square, is planted with trees from all 50 states, wonderfully diverse and a daily inspiration. </p>
<p>Oberlin sends more students on to PhD’s than any other LAC. That statistic covers all departments, and I don’t have the breakdown by Biology Department. Oberlin represents very well for Goldwater Scholarships and other indicators of excellence.</p>
Generalizations like this are rarely helpful. For many students that I know , that is simply not the truth. The process is just more individual than that.</p>
<p>Large state flagship or small LAC for science? I went the former route and received a Ph.D. in a social science and now teach at a state college. I observed that my grad school classmates from Ivies and top lacs were terrific writers…they rarely encountered M.C. tests, instead had written extensive papers/essays in most classes. Though I was part of an honors program (6 honors classes plus a thesis) the majority of my core courses were not very challenging. IMO, aspiring scientists need development in the liberal arts, in addition to great research/lab experiences to write grants, conduct rigorous research and publish. This basic preparation is the essence of a solid four year degree (grad school is very focused in the discipline). The links and commentary have been helpful!</p>
<p>At some level, this exercise is a red herring. To me, Biology is like English – an incredibly broad field that attracts a lot of students, many of them pre-meds. Any college that is in the business of providing a broad liberal arts education, and that has not abandoned all efforts to attract students interested in science, is going to be paying a lot of attention to its Biology department, course offerings, and research opportunities. There simply isn’t any alternative. Therefore, while some may have better facilities than others – something you can tell easily from a visit – the others are probably in the midst of fundraising to upgrade theirs’, and the disparity will be reduced or reversed well before today’s 11th graders finish college. And the normal random vicissitudes of job changes, illnesses, and planned leaves can punch a hole in any LAC’s offerings in any subject from time to time. That just comes with the territory. But a strong LAC is going to have strong offerings in Biology, or else it won’t be a strong LAC in a few years.</p>
<p>Also, beware of things like medical school acceptance rates. While it’s easy to measure the numerator on that one, colleges can do lots of things to manipulate the denominator, and I don’t think there’s any consistency in the reported numbers.</p>
<p>I would also note that there’s scant evidence medical schools care much about the sophistication of research an applicant has been involved with. It may well be true that an undergraduate student at a large research university may see cooler things happening, and play some role in them, it’s not at all clear that all or most of such students are advantaged in going to the next step on that account, especially if the next step is medical school.</p>
<p>Separately, I would like to express frustration with people who announce proudly that they are “data-driven”. Being data-driven is great as long as you have solid, reliable data available that actually address things you care about, or you can develop such data at reasonable cost. Unfortunately, that’s the exception, not the rule, in most areas of life. So people often choose to focus on unreliable data that are collateral to what they really care about, and don’t even address major areas of concern. Relying on data like that isn’t being data-driven, it’s engaging in a variant of magical thinking . . . of maybe just being data-driven-off-a-cliff.</p>
<p>JHS, that “data driven” shot was unnecessary. For what could very well be an expenditure of over $200,000 for a college degree, I am unwilling to just take the word of a college marketing department on how good their program is. That is exactly why I started this thread, in order to see if others have any solid, reliable data on this topic. It is possible that there isn’t any. But I watch TONS of people make a choice of a college for their kid based on a visit that includes just a tour and an info session… they don’t attend a class, interview a professor, have a written list of questions during their visit, do anything to compare the program at one college to another in their area of interest, or have their kid attend an overnight stay before making this big decision. It works out for some people, but others end up transferring or unhappy (happened to several kids in D1’s class). D1 is having a terrific, well matched, reasonably priced college experience because we worked our tails off researching the first time around. It was completely worth the investment of time and dollars we made.</p>
<p>intparent, I really didn’t mean that as a shot, certainly not at you. The frustration comes from a number of contexts in which people vaunt how “data-driven” they are, but seem to think that being data-driven requires them to make decisions based on obviously partial and unreliable data, just because it’s the only data they have. This happens all the time, especially in medicine and education. It leads to terrible, unstable decisionmaking, which no truly data-driven person should tolerate.</p>
<p>The issue affects lots of discussions here on CC. The most common is probably people overvaluing standardized test scores simply because they are the best, most reliable, most transparent data available. And they are all of that – they just don’t measure everything a rational college cares about very reliably. When colleges entirely rely – as many do – on SATs and GPAs to make admissions decisions, that’s a matter of convenience, not being data-driven. Another sensational recent example is the recent National Research Council graduate program rankings, which in their desire to be entirely anchored in data rendered themselves nearly useless.</p>
<p>I certainly didn’t mean to criticize you for asking whether anyone had some relevant data, or knew of any. That’s admirable. I agree with you that lots of people don’t ask that question, and make decisions based on marketing presentations, which isn’t very satisfactory. I did mean to suggest, however, that even if some relevant data exists, it isn’t likely to be so high-quality and comprehensive as to permit it to be the sole basis of a decision.</p>
<p>Mafool, why would you say “highly ranked”? That is the type of info I am looking for.</p>
<p>JHS, that is exactly what I am trying NOT to do, rely on just the high test scores of admitted students to judge the quality of specific programs. Of course, this is difficult with Bio. It is a broad field. I didn’t really expect a ‘clean answer’. But I have gotten some valuable stuff so far… mostly just some new/more detailed questions in my own mind and some ideas of places to follow up. And a few new schools to consider, and a couple to drop from the list. The good news is, we have some time to work on this; D2 is a soph this year, and we are really plannning for next year’s campus visits. She is spending her time happily burrowing through the Campbell’s Biology book in preparation for the Biology Olympiad test and thinking about what areas of Bio she finds most interesting. I figure combining that with what info I can glean through research will prepare us well for her visits.</p>