Liberal arts college vs. University

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I am not going to ask what the difference between the two are, but instead I ask what difference is there between the students at the two different types of schools?</p>

<p>When people here at CC list for example the best economic majors they do not mention any liberal art schools. Is it because they are worse or is it because it is difficult to compare the two? Is for example Bowdoin a worse college than a university like Notre Dame (in general)? I know they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but are there any substantial differences that are worth mentioning?</p>

<p>Would you recommend that I go to a liberal arts college or university if I later on want to take my master at a highly ranked university?</p>

<p>Probably most of you will say that it is up to me where I want to go, but since I am from Sweden I do not know very much about where I want to attend college. All I know is that I want to work with really smart people (like top 2 percent-smart).</p>

<p>Thank you for taking the time to read my post and hopefully you want to share your thoughts with me :)</p>

2

<p>people rarely include liberal arts colleges in their rankings because their rankings (knowingly or otherwise) are almost always rooted in the research productivity of school faculties.</p>

<p>with that in mind, what does the research productivity of a professor have to do with quality of the intermediate macroeconomics class he is required to teach? i have no clue.</p>

3

<p>

A good many CC posters are either wholehearted supporters of universities or rely on rankings for their knowledge of good programs. Rankings of programs at LACs do not exist, however, and therefore many posters are unable to suggest relevant programs or schools. </p>

<p>Some programs at LACs are well-known enough that the general CC populace is familiar with them. I recall one thread where more than 10 people insisted someone interested in economics consider Claremont McKenna! Other examples are film at Wesleyan, math at St. Olaf, art history at Williams, and engineering at Mudd. </p>

<p>In general, however, many extremely strong programs at LACs (e.g. the sciences at Hope, marine science at Eckerd, archaeology at Lycoming, writing at Hollins, and psychology at Franklin & Marshall) go completely unnoticed. :confused:</p>

<p>

Unless it is a highly specialized subject that a LAC cannot do well, both routes prepare one perfectly well for graduate admissions.</p>

<p>

There is nothing fundamentally different about either set of students, and often a university is much closer to a LAC in feel than another university. Many people applying to Dartmouth also like Middlebury, for example, whereas they might not like USC at all. As another example, a Cornell applicant might also apply to Colgate but not BYU.</p>

4

<p>Here are two differences that might matter to you:</p>

<p>(1) Lots of universities have both a business department and an economics department. Lots of liberal arts colleges only have an economics department. The theory at the LAC that they are giving people who want to major in business a broader context (namely, a liberal arts context!). I don’t know what impact this difference has on the types of students enrolled at one place or the other, however.</p>

<p>(2) Another difference that might matter is the primary function of the faculty. At a LAC, they tend to be teachers first and researchers second. At a private/research university, they tend to be researchers first and teachers second. And, they may well focus their teaching on grad students, who in turn teach the undergrads. </p>

<p>Please note these are generalities only . . . don’t kill me with anecdotal counter-examples!</p>

5

<p>“Would you recommend that I go to a liberal arts college or university if I later on want to take my master at a highly ranked university?”</p>

<p>One isn’t better than the other - only different - for the purposes of getting a masters degree later. Decide what kind of educational environment you want, what part of the country you want to be in, whether you want an urban, rural or suburban environment, and how much money you have available.</p>

6

<p>"(2) Another difference that might matter is the primary function of the faculty. At a LAC, they tend to be teachers first and researchers second. At a private/research university, they tend to be researchers first and teachers second. And, they may well focus their teaching on grad students, who in turn teach the undergrads. "</p>

<p>Totally agree with this. And this may very well be your most important reason for choosing one over the other.</p>

<p>Mainly, you should aim for the quality of teaching, and for small class sizes, where you can get proper attention from the teacher. After all, your primary reason for going to college is the education first, and everything else later.</p>

<p>All LACs and also some research universities have small class sizes. I know about students who feel lost in the 200+ size lecture classes and then prefer not to attend class at all, preferring instead to study on their own.</p>

<p>Makes you question why they are attending college at all…</p>

7

<p>LACs often have smaller classes, and a smaller more personal social environment.
Universities often offer many more courses, many more sections of courses, many more advanced level courses. And a more anonymous social evironment, which can perhaps be made more personal if you so choose.</p>

<p>For whatever colleges you may be interested in, go on to their registrar’s list of courses that were given each of the last two semesters. That wil give you an idea of what you can learn at each school.</p>

<p>Here’s another general outline of the differences, from elsewhere on CC:</p>

<p>"I spent half my college career at each: Bryn Mawr College (with lots of classes at Harverford & Swarthmore) and Harvard College. Here’s the best way I’ve come up with of explaining the difference as far as the student experience:</p>

<p>A good LAC is like a formal sit-down restaurant. Helpful waiters lead you to a booth, bring you the menu and explain the options available. There are several choices for each course, and each one will be nicely prepared and brought directly to your table. It’s very safe and cosy, and you’re unlikely to be surprised or disappointed by anything you order. But if you want something that’s not on that menu – or if you don’t like the people you’re seated with – you’re just out of luck.</p>

<p>A good university is like the midnight buffet on a cruise ship. There are literally thousands of choices, from sushi to enchiladas to chocolate truffles, and if you want something you don’t see on the buffet, you can ask them to whip some up for you. You can sit wherever you like, with whoever you like, and change seats several times if you want. You can return to the buffet to try different things multiple times. However, it’s your job to pick the food you want and your responsibility to bring it to your table. There are helpful staff members available to give you a hand if you need one, but you have to get up and find them and ask them questions. If you just sit at your table and wait, you’re going to starve.</p>

<p>So there’s no way to say which is better for you without knowing your personality. I felt stifled and bored at an LAC, and I had a much better time constantly trying out new things at a university. Conversely, I had friends at Bryn Mawr who loved the feeling of being taken care of and knowing everyone, and would have been totally lost and lonely at a university"</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>A field like economics is not a fixed body of knowledge that can be completely reduced to 850 pages in a textbook. New areas and modes of scholarship continually open up. Example:
[Behavioral</a> economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics]Behavioral”>Behavioral economics - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Modern research universities exist to make that happen. They don’t exist only to transmit what is received from the past (like Greek philosophy or the Bible) to a new generation. They push the envelope.</p>

<p>Imagine two equally personable young teachers with PhDs from the same university. One teaches several courses per term for the next 20 years. He does little research other than attending annual conferences and submitting an article to some journal every 5 years. The other teaches fewer courses but every year publishes one or two significant articles that, over time, push the field into a new direction. Which one do you think will grow into a better teacher at the end of 20 years? </p>

<p>The answer is not completely straightforward because the teacher who does little research may be growing in other ways. He or she may be exposed in every class to good questions from students that change his or her perspective on the field (and on people). So this isn’t simply a question of LAC v. university. You have to look at the quality of the environment and how it stimulates one kind of activity and growth or the other.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the ideal is a LAC-like university where faculty do significant research, but also interact continually in high-quality discussion with undergraduates. I don’t think there are too many schools that manage this balancing act very well.</p>

9

<p>It depends on the person, what you want to do, and what level of schools you are looking at.</p>

<p>A person who likes smaller environments generally do better at LACs than at Ivy leagues and other universities. A person who thrives more in diverse (not racially, but that too) student bodies with infinite resources is going to do better at a national university. This isn’t to say that Harvard is necssarily that much better at providing an education than Williams, but just that some people aren’t made for the atmosphere of a Harvard or MIT. The slower paced LAC is a better atmosphere.</p>

<p>It also depends on what you want to study. I know people who have pursued science degrees that have had a hard time demonstrating the value of their degree on paper. A hard science degree from an LAC doesn’t always hold the weight of a hard science degree from a university. Most people who pursue an LAC do so because they want exactly what the LAC offers, a liberal arts degree. If you are looking at history, english, etc., an LAC is great. If you are looking at a science, it may not be as useful down the road. You can always go to grad school though.</p>

<p>Finally, the level of school makes a difference. The top 50 or so national universities are all going to be well known around the country and abroad. They carry a cache with their name. This is only true of the top 15 or 20 LACs. After that, most of the LACs can usually just be grouped together as regionally strong, but lacking national recognition. So if you are looking for an education but may want to relocate down the road, this is something to keep in mind.</p>

10

<p>

Oh, who knows? I’ve seen great professors at LACs and perfectly horrendous ones at universities. I’ve also seen very nurturing professors at universities and at least one rather apathetic one at a LAC. The type of institution makes little difference in the quality of teaching. Teaching at a LAC implies dedication to teaching, not necessarily teaching ability. </p>

<p>I have to admit that I am somewhat puzzled by the question posed in your post. Are you suggesting that professors at LACs blindly keep teaching the same material year after year? I rather hope not, as I would have to vehemently disagree. In my field, for example, I’ve run into plenty of LAC professors at conferences, I’ve come across multiple publications by LAC professors, and several LACs have important excavations. LAC professors have been at the forefront of my field in several different ways – the director of the Athens excavation is at a LAC (Randolph-Macon), the director of the most important Bronze Age excavation is at a LAC (Dickinson), the foremost opponent of Afro-Centrism is at a LAC (Wellesley), one of the leading experts on Linear B is at a LAC (Trinity), the leading experts on ancient Cyprus are at LACs (Colgate and Davidson), the leading expert outside of Harvard on ancient Israel and biblical studies is at a LAC (Lycoming), etc. </p>

<p>Additionally, research is often not of much use when teaching. A professor can be the leading expert on the Saite period in Egypt, but that does not particularly distinguish him as a teacher of world history, as his research interests are quite circumscribed. Undergraduate courses are intentionally broad, and professors (to their regret) often only get to reference their own specialist interests for a week or so in most courses. Additionally, research is not even all that necessary for keeping abreast of developments in the field…that is why journals were invented, after all. From what I’ve seen, LAC professors are perfectly up to date in their fields and are more than capable of teaching that material effectively. </p>

<p>Now, I have nothing against universities (having attended two myself), but both my sister and boyfriend attended(ed) LACs, and I have to say, I’m extremely impressed with those schools. I don’t think their educations are at all inferior to the education I received, and they receive more personal attention, which I had previously thought was impossible. While LAC-like universities are good (most prominently Dartmouth, Wake Forest, and William & Mary), I would add that LACs in consortiums are also an excellent option – especially if that consortium includes a major university, as the 5 college and Quaker consortiums do.</p>

11

<p>Monydad, I know you are fond of bringing up that quote, but I don’t think it’s completely accurate. Socially, yes, there are limits. I completely agree with her there. But the academic “menu” isn’t as limited at LACs as that quote makes it seem. The quote obviously places LACs is a negative light. She made it seem that a school that will do practically anything to help you succeed is a bad thing. Most good LACs will get you whatever you need. If you’re the student paying 25k a semester, who doesn’t want the attention? But to each his own. </p>

<p>To op: Obviously I’m a supporter of LACs for undergrad. I strongly believe they will give you just as good or better an education simply because the teaching is usually better and more intimate. I was faced with the same decision as you, and I chose an LAC. As for the student question, LACs attract students just as bright as Universities. Some of my classmates are geniuses, all of them are bright, and almost all are interesting. There ARE many advantages to a University though, but for education - which is what matters if you’re getting a masters - I think an LAC usually wins out. Good luck with your choice.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>If by “fast paced”, you mean the academics, that’s not necessarily true based on my LAC experience and from sitting in/taking classes at two Ivies…including Harvard. </p>

<p>If anything, the pacing of the courses was about the same or in a few cases…actually slower at the Ivies (Mainly because of the larger class sizes and the fact not all of the TFs were great at teaching/helping their students which ended up slowing the class down at times).</p>

13

<p>“Most good LACs will get you whatever you need.”
Have you been to “most” LACs? I haven’t. I guess “need” is different than “want”.
Perhaps they will give one much of what one wants, if they have it. But there’s plenty they may not have, given the size limitation of their staffs. And even if they have it, they may not have it when you need it.</p>

<p>The one LAC D1 attended is all I, for one, can speak to. They did <em>not</em> give her whatever she wanted. She wanted to study a particular sub-area of her major, and they had no courses in it, and no professors knowledgeable in that sub-area, and she did not wind up pursuing it there, though she wanted to. There was another sub-area it looked like she would likewise have to pass on, but just in time they happened to hire someone who had that interest; for several years prior, courses were in the catalog but unavailable. She had other situations she had to take courses she did not prefer because of only one section offered of two particular courses she wanted, in two different subjects, with one or both offered only every other year. Having to pass on something altogether due to infrequency of offerings, and only one section offered thereby maximizing conflicts, is much more likely at an LAC than at a good private U, IMO. At the U if you can also get shut out, but if you get shut out once you have more other shots at it, either via other sections the same semester and/or other semesters due to more frequent offerings…</p>

<p>And yes I have read stories about problems of getting courses at some state universities, but the private university I’m familiar with this has not been a huge problem.</p>

<p>Small classes can be good, what the small schools lack is breadth and depth of course offerings, by comparison. My point of reference is the University I attended, I cannot speak for them all either. As warblersrule86 indicated, a good consortium can at least theoretically make up part of this gap- though obviously the Quaker one didn’t impress Hanna, who made the quote.</p>

<p>You are mostly limited to what they offer, and they offer instruction in fewer areas, in fewer courses. Particularly advanced and graduate level courses are relatively lacking.</p>

<p>My D2 is now attending the U I attended, in its arts & Sciences college. She has taken the opportunity to take courses in three of its other colleges, outside of arts &sciences, because these courses were available to her also and on balance she preferred them to the offerings solely in arts &Sciences. (Which BTW, by themselves are far more numerous than the offerings at D1s LAc). It is very common for Arts &Sciences students there to take courses outside of Arts &Sciences offerings alone. Because they want to, and they can. They don’t need to be confined. The course catalog at that university is 700 pages.</p>

<p>D2 transferred to the U after 3 semesters at an LAC, I think this worked out pretty well for her, “best of both worlds”, sort of. Smaller intro classes but then near-unlimited advanced level courses once you focus in more, or decide to stretch out into a road less travelled.</p>

14

<p>

If you were not an international student, I would say an LAC. Since you are, I would qualify that to say an LAC in/near a large city like Boston, NY, Philly, Chicago, etc. My experience at a couple of Universities is that International students benefit tremendously from a large population of Intenationals at their school, or in a quckly accessible city.</p>

15

<p>"If by “fast paced”, you mean the academics, that’s not necessarily true based on my LAC experience and from sitting in/taking classes at two Ivies…including Harvard. </p>

<p>If anything, the pacing of the courses was about the same or in a few cases…actually slower at the Ivies "</p>

<p>Evidently Hanna had a far different experience:
“I transferred to Harvard after two years of classes at Bryn Mawr/Haverford. The workload in similar fields was similar, but the standard of writing expected in humanities and social science classes at Harvard was far higher. I got an A in my full-year freshman writing class at Bryn Mawr. But as a Harvard junior taking a Core English class in a section full of freshmen, I wasn’t able to get better than an A-minus despite working much, much harder on my papers than I had at Bryn Mawr. You will not be an A student at Harvard without being an excellent writer”</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>"Here’s a brief anecdote. </p>

<p>When I was at Bryn Mawr, I took introductory Japanese at Haverford. It was hands down the toughest course I’d ever taken, but also very rewarding. Harvard uses the same curriculum as Haverford, so I figured that after I transferred, I could start second-year Japanese. Come to find out that I would have to start over…because Harvard uses the same Japanese curriculum as Haverford, but moves through the material exactly TWICE as fast. So my first year of Japanese at Haverford only covered the first semester at Harvard. That’s regular speed; Harvard also offers accelerated Japanese, which covers the material of the entire four-year bachelor’s program at Haverford in the first year. So if you want to know if Harvard offers tough courses, that’s one apples-to-apples comparison. "</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>I knew several Oberlin classmates who took second year Chinese or more advanced Chinese courses at Harvard’s summer program/GSAS without any difficulties. </p>

<p>Went at about the same speed, but emphasized material differently so the summer school students actually felt they had to do extra prep work after the summer session to cover the materials which weren’t emphasized as much/covered out of the familiar sequence so they could test in to the third-year Chinese course. </p>

<p>This is understandable as the Harvard Chinese textbooks I’ve seen cover the same material in different sequences than the Princeton books we used. </p>

<p>Heard similar things from classmates who took Japanese languages at both Oberlin and Harvard summer school/GSAS. No one I knew from my LAC had the issue Hanna encountered.</p>

17

<p>

Hardly. I think very highly of Bryn Mawr, but realistically it shares very little overlap with Harvard, which is considered by most to be the top college in the country (if not the world). A difference in difficulty references a difference in selectivity, not curriculum or teaching philosophy. </p>

<p>If you’re going to compare any two schools, why not compare Bryn Mawr to, say, Boston U or U Miami? It would be a similarly lopsided comparison. In terms of student stats, it makes more sense to compare the curriculum of Bryn Mawr with Brandeis or Michigan than Harvard.</p>

<p>In any case, I’m skeptical of such anecdotal claims. Recruited athletes (with stats much lower than Harvard’s average) do perfectly well at Harvard. Students like the Tulane students studying at Harvard during Katrina fared perfectly well also, and many even wanted to stay. Unless Tulane and comparable universities are considerably more rigorous than Bryn Mawr - which I quite frankly doubt - then I am not so sure there is a vast difference in difficulty, though there is likely some.</p>

18

<p>The course in question was given by Haverford College, a top 10 LAC overall and in selectivity rank according to US News. Hanna took it via consortium access.</p>

<p>The quote was completely on point since cobrat explicitly compared LAC course level to that at Harvard, by name. His frame of reference is an LAC ranked lower, overall and in student selectivity, than Haverford.</p>

<p>Therefore I think the quote is completely on point in the context of this current discussion, as to the point raised by cobrat here.</p>

<p>There are of course other examples, for instance my own U offers a level of advanced Physics intro courses that are higher level than what was available at D1s LAc. and elective language instruction courses that are leagues more intensive. But I had no ready quote for that. </p>

<p>I cannot compare every given course of every given university to every given LAC because I have no experience, even indirect, with but a few. Nobody who attended Bryn Mawr and then Brandeis has posted on CC about their experiences.</p>

19

<p>^ I wouldn’t get worked up, monydad. The anecdote was appropriate. There are a lot of LACers who have a chip on their shoulder about the big universities, likely because they didn’t get into the national universities and had to go to an LAC. :)</p>

20

<p>^^^^^:rolleyes:</p>