<p>Interesting points and the very thing I'm struggling with my son. Accepted Michigan - Engineering and Vanderbilt A&S. Two different worlds, two different couses of study. But like many he is unsure as to his long-term objectives and interests. Strong in math/sciences therefore - engineering. But unsure as to what an engineer "really does" in the world as far as a "day to day" job - therefore A&S and a broader education.</p>
<p>So my question is....does a smaller research university like Vanderbilt offer a "middle of the road" alternative to the large research universities and the smaller LACs?</p>
<p>taht's exactly how i fell. i know what the schools are about now, roughly, and I KNOW that i would do better at an atmosphere like Wesleyan's, but my concern is now my growth as a person. I want to be someone who has initiative and drive and motivatin and will survive at a place like Berkeley, and I think that going to UCB - while hurting me academically in the short term - might force me to grow up and out of my need for a place like Wesleyan and prepare me better for the real world. BUT i am not sure. i might just end up completely wilting there. THAT is what i'm doing the aforementioned soul-searching about.</p>
<p>also, i was thinking the same thing about Rice that Mountandog was asking about Vandy:</p>
<p>is a smaller uni like Rice gonna offer a kind of "middle of the road" thing? best of both worlds?</p>
<p>sunkist, sorry I'm not the one to ask about biology.</p>
<p>about:blank, I don't have any firsthand knowledge about Rice, except that it's also an excellent institution.</p>
<p>No way that Berkeley will hurt you academically as long as you demonstrate some of that initiative, drive and motivation. Believe me, you'll need it at Wesleyan too. What top LACs offer is support and accessibility, not hand-holding or baby sitting. </p>
<p>These are all good choices, but only you can decide which is best for you. </p>
<p>Wow I am also having this same dilemma, between my big, but highly regarded state uni and my nearest "top LAC" the thing is, the school is ranked as a "top" lac but I find that there aren't all that many people who really now about it outside my state. man I just don't know which would be best for me, I can assume that I would like the LAC better but I didn't get much money there and it will be like twice as much as my state school, I just don't know what to do....</p>
<p>Cats, how can we advise you if you do not give us the universities? If your option is between say Minnesota and Carleton or Oregon and Reed or Iowa and Grinnell, I would recommend the LAC. On the other hand, if your otion is between say Michigan and Kalamazoo or Cal and Occidental, I would probably recommend the state U.</p>
<p>Cats, first of all, never pick a school simply because people you know heard of it...or turn down a school simply because people you know have not heard of it. You should always go where you feel you can do best...and where you feel you will be happiest. This said, I would recommend Washington of Whitman...if only because it would save you $60,000+. However, if you feel you would be a better fit for Whitman, go for it. Academically, both are excellent, albeit in different ways.</p>
<p>Thank you! I was leaning that way anyway, I don't want you to think I was basing it entirely on prestige or anything, I really loved both the schools when I visited. I just couldn't decide and I thought to whether or not they were highly regarded might just be a tipping factor, not the basis of my decision. Thanks!</p>
<p>I, too, got admitted to Rice, Berkeley, and several good liberal arts colleges. My decision turned out to be easy, but for other reasons (financial aid, proximity, etc). I don't know if you've visited either Rice or Cal, but there is a big difference between the two. Rice is much, much more like a liberal arts school. It is a mostly residential college, classes are smaller and more personal, and there is a much more connected feel. Rice not only feels smaller, it is smaller (about five thousand including grad students). The advantage of Rice is that you get the research facilities and oppurtunities (especially if you're going into science) but you still get a personal feel. (I'm not going to Cal or Rice, but I would definitely choose Rice over Cal).</p>
<p>So much depends on what you want to study, and whether you are going to be looking for a job right out of college or going to grad school. If you're interested in science and want to get a job out of college, it really is easier if you come from a university rather than an LAC. However, many LACs top the lists of students going to good grad schools, so it makes much less difference in grad school admissions.</p>
<p>Abeckon is absolutely correct. I would go so far as to generalize even further by saying that the dichotomy is really one of vocational/trade school versus the more traditional notion of studia humanitatis. Universities have become, obviously, much more driven by research dollars, grants, contracts, etc., and the concomitent obligations attatched to that sector of life, while, for the most part, LAC's remain more firmly invested in those traditional studies that are thought to possess human value with the ability to make man a fully realized human creature. While there is bleeding at the edge of both these definitions, the core philosophy of each--that is to say, what motivates the campus life of the students at either kind of institution--is, at heart, as I have expressed it above. There are, of course, hybrids--Harvard and Princeton come most quickly to mind--where older allegiances seem to hold their own against the stamp of modern life; but even here, I would have to argue that a wink and a nod are in place, and the humanities, other than as a training ground for future LAC profs, are given short shrift. That is to say, the heart of the college, as it is administered, is not with them.
Universities are excellent trade schools. If you wish to be a doctor or a lawyer or an auto mechanic who can also work on rocket boosters, the quick contact and big payoff is here. With proper guidance you might even become a healer or compasionate advocate or an inventor of cost-effective hydrogen automobile engines, but chances are you will have spent less time studying yourself and the important questions you haven't had time to look into up until now. Good LAC's, on the other hand, have, as an abiding concern, just those questions at their core, and their focus, as a stated philosophy, is to force you to wrestle with them. The idea is that having seen the other in yourself, you will be less apt to allow it to do your bidding once you enter into whatever business you decide upon after graduation. At the very least, you will, in theory, be more accepting of the "other" in others and strive to help them, as you yourself were helped, as a way of helping us all. So, there you have it.</p>
<p>One of the best posts I've seen on the subject...it cut through the fog of hype and obfuscation like a clipper!</p>
<p>This debate is, in many respects, not just about universities/colleges but about who we want to be as people and what we think we are as civil-beings.</p>
<p>Initially i thought I wanted to go to a small liberal arts college. Small class sizes and close interaction with my professors seemed very enticing. I applied to five small LAC. I presently attend Franklin and Marshall College (a small LAC in Amish Country PA). After my first semester here it was clear to me that the disadvantages of a small LAC far outweigh the advantages for me at least. So I am presently waiting for transfer decisions to four larger research universities. I dont know if i can be of any help to any of you but if you have questions you can post them here. I guess my advice is to just make a list of pros and cons and really think about what is right for you, and if it doesnt work out its never too late to change. I dont know.</p>
<p>Robin, rubbish. In my day the leadership of the anti-war and other university social movements was on the campuses of Berkeley, Wisconsin and Michigan--not some sleepy LAC.</p>