<p>What exactly are the differences between the two, in all aspects?</p>
<p>By definition?</p>
<p>By connotation/impression?</p>
<p>To grad schools/med schools/law schools?</p>
<p>Big names/respect accorded?</p>
<p>I bring this up because I am currently choosing between Rice, Berkeley and Wesleyan. Now, college rankings is one of the factors (but not the biggest) in making my decision. I see that under universities, the difference between Rice and Berkeley in the USNews rankings is somewhat negligible (late teens and early twenties). But Wesleyan is on a totally different ranking list (#9 under liberal arts colleges). How do I now compare? Or does the nature of liberal arts colleges and universities make comparison like this impossible?</p>
<p>It is impossible to compare those three schools. All of them are equally excellent in their own way, so I suggest you go for the one you feel most comfortable with.</p>
<p>i had this big question in my head too when i did my app research. LACs are almost unique in the US cuz most of the popular countries intl students go to only have universities instead. i come from hong kong and it is a very brit-based system and even universities are kinda subject-based. the great thing abt LACs is that they're, well as their name says, liberal. i didnt even have to state my intended major when i applied for Wes, and you could take courses you like there and declare your major 1 or 2 yrs later. as for universities, different unis have different styles. I applied for UCLA as pre-poli sci and later realized i couldnt change my major unless my GPA is at least 3.2 or sth like that. I think it'd be pretty much the same for UCB. Dont know abt Rice though.</p>
<p>i personally prefer small size LACs because the QUALITY of education, i believe, is almost guaranteed. Gonna skip the small class, great social life blablabla cliche, but those really are special things abt LACs. when i talked to my Cornell interviewer she told me Cornell has sth like the 2nd biggest class size in the US or sth like that (and with pride) and that really really put me off. (i later withdrew my app though they wouldnt hav accepted me anyway hahaha) but of course, universities have the advantage of being big and a lota the times they have more resourses. my Cornell interviewer said 'when the school is big and there're more ppl in it, there's a higher chance of knowing ppl you like and can get along with' </p>
<p>as for grad school... there's a list done by USnews (if i havnt remembered wrong) ranking schools which are 'feeders' to top grad schools. try search the forum n see what you get.</p>
<p>the ranking list is really not that important... they included components like whether the teaching staff are full-time or not and i was like, who cares abt whether they work fulltime, as long as they're gd... anyway, i'd recommend wes, of course, because i chose it myself hahaha. check their websites out and see whats your impression towards the different schools or even talk to students from there. that helped me a whole lot.</p>
<p>Jurily, LACs are excellent, but do not be quick to judge. At a large university like Cornell, you can take countless graduate level classes in your Junior and Senior years. You can also chose from a variety of classes and majors that are not even offered at LACs. The advantages of large research universities make up for their shortcomings. At the end of the day, we must each go for a university that fits our academic goals.</p>
<p>The first thing you have to realize is that as far as grad schools and employers are concerned there is no difference between a degree earned at a liberal arts college and one earned at a research university. It all depends on the individual school.</p>
<p>Now a little history. By definition, a liberal arts college (LAC) is nothing more than an undergraduate college that exists on its own campus with little or no grad or professional schools. Historically, the earliest American universities (Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Columbia, William & Mary, to name a few) all started out as LACs and their undergraduate colleges are still the central enterprise of their arts & science faculty.</p>
<p>By connotation, the twenty or so top rated LACs still bring to mind an earlier era of American history when teachers were expected to know students by name, to know something about their backgrounds and were concerned with about their personal as well as intellectual growth.</p>
<p>Again, by connotation, modern universities are principally engaged in the production of new knowledge, be it in the sciences or some breakthrough in the humanities. To that end, university faculty spend approximately half their time with older students who are working toward Masters and Doctoral degrees, in subjects that match their own fields of interest.</p>
<p>The universities with the biggest names (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, the rest of the Ivies, Stanford) all pay lip service to how much they resemble an LAC in their approach to undergraduates. Conversely, the top ranked LACs all pay lip service to how much research their faculty engage in. In other words, the best colleges are really just small universities and the best universities are really just big, extremely efficient versions of LACs; which is why many, many American students wind up applying to both. </p>
<p>Johnwesley, what you say isn't entirely accurate. Columbia, Cornell, Harvard and Penn each have over 20,000 students. Northwestern and Stanford have roughly 15,000 students each. Chicago, Duke, MIT and Yale have over 10,000 students. I would not say that those schools are merely big LACs. All of the schools mentioned above have classes with over 200 students and professors at those schools do not usually know undergrads by name, or take the time to get to know their students. Their are exceptions to the rule of course, but the vast majority of research universities are not set up in a way, nor do they have the necessary resources, to handle such large student bodies as would a LAC with 1,500 undergraduate students.</p>
<p>On the flip side, LACs cannot come close to offering the breadth and depth of academic options, world class professors and cutting edge information...nor do LACs (due to their small student bodies, lack of research and consulting professors and professional graduate programs) have the same type of connections to industry to provide their students with the best in career guidance and on-campus corporate recruiting.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, top LACs and top research universities are all excellent, but they offer completely opposite atmospheres and approaches to education.</p>
<p>Alexandre - I'm not saying that universities and LACs are <em>exactly</em> alike. What I am saying is that each, in its own way, acknowledges the other's strengths. The Yale residential system is explicitly designed to replicate the feel of 12 small, rural LACs (complete with their own faculty) in the middle of New Haven; Harvard's House system is a nod in the same direction. Columbia and Chicago students are required to take a core curriculum, something you wouldn't think necessary at two places with so many courses to choose from (even Amherst doesn't have required courses anymore.)</p>
<p>Similarly, I don't think any LAC would deliberately hire anyone who didn't have a field of expertise that could lead his/her department into new and interesting areas of inquiry. The days of the avuncular "Mr. Chips" who never has to publish original work are over. Indeed, with average budgets hovering well over $100,000,000 a year, the top LACs often compete with universities for top names.</p>
<p>About:blank, I'm in the same situation as you. You guys make a lot of good points about the diff between LACs and big universities, but what ARE the "completely opposite atmospheres and approaches to education," and how does this difference affect the future (grad school and/or job hunting)?</p>
<p>Personally, I think the main difference between LAC and universities is how much the college "cares" for you. In larger universities, class sizes are often larger, and many classes (especially intro classes) are taught by TAs and graduate students. The universities cares less about the individual students, and some professors care more about their own research than teaching classes. However, it is true that there are more classes to choose from, and you could possibily meet more people.
LACs tend to care for their students more, at the cost of variety. Teachers tend to know the students personally, and all classes are usually taught by professors. The administration makes a greater effort to help the individual student.
In the end, it depends on what kind of education you want. Do you want a large univeristy in which you can meet many people and have a lot of different opportunities? Or do you want a small LAC which you know most people and have more of a family feel to it. My sister goes to Harvard and while she loves it there, she admits that the administration doesn't really care for the individual student. Most large colleges have the "sink or swim" approach. I, on the other hand, would rather have a close community with smaller class sizes and more interaction with the faculty, so I choose LACs. It depends on each person.</p>
<p>Your dilemma also includes where do you want to be. All three schools are in three different areas of the country. All three have different political climates and student bodies. If you haven't visited each school, you must since your gut, heart and head will tell you where you belong. All three have advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps making a pro & con list of each school will help narrow down your choice.</p>
<p>Darkling - in terms of "completely opposite atmospheres", the starkest difference is that LACs are almost always in small towns or cities. Barnard is just about the only exception I can think of. What this means in terms of everyday life is that, at an LAC, after awhile, you recognize strangers almost immediately. Even to people you don't know entirely, you feel comfortable saying, "Hi" when you see them on the street. On the other end of the extreme, I went to law school in Philadelphia and had lunch at the same cafeteria every day for three years and it was a rare week when I ever saw the same faces two days in a row. Some people like the constant turnover of university life; some people like the sense of community of LACs.</p>
<p>As I said, before, it makes no difference to employers or grad schools per se whether you got your B.A. from one or the other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In larger universities, class sizes are often larger, and many classes (especially intro classes) are taught by TAs and graduate students.
[/quote]
This is not really true. For one thing, TA's are graduate students; the quote makes it sound as if they are 2 different categories. </p>
<p>Second, it simply isn't true that most classes are taught by grad students. The way it works is there is a large lecture taught by the prof. This is the class, meeting 3x a week. Then once a week you go to a discussion section with a TA that has 15-30 students. Only in a very few instances is the class taught by a TA, primarily things like an intro English comp class where they want it to be small and there aren't enough profs around to teach it. But again, this is the exception, not the rule as dcrono says.</p>
<p>about:blank, just seeing that user name causes me to see red - I spent several days cleansing my workstation from that little persistent scourge, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!</p>
<p>I used to work at UT at Austin - the largest public university in the US, and I'm here to tell you that many courses are indeed taught by graduate students. Some universities call them "assistant instructors", or "lecturers", so that you never can be sure who is teaching the course. They won't really be upfront about their background, either. They'll let you call them professor and give you the patronizing treatment just like the PhD's. </p>
<p>Also, many of the larger universities, maybe not the Ivies, but public schools for sure, will have oversubscribed courses. I've seen seniors desperate to get into a course they need for graduation be turned away for lack of a seat in the class. I doubt that would happen at an LAC. When the time came for my D to choose schools, I gently suggested she might want to consider a LAC.</p>
<p>Also, the comment that universities are more focused on research is spot on. For our faculty member, the merit review process (and believe me, these guys took this process very seriously), consisted of a big list of publications and grants. The student evaluation part only mattered if the scores were abyssmal. Even then, it would not have dinged a top researcher very much.</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>