<p>Hi, Serena --</p>
<p>My admissions knowledge is 4-5 years old at this point. You look like a good applicant, but I'd also suggest really working on "soft factors" to set yourself apart...essay, recommendations, interview. If you take the SAT again, really try to boost your CR score (at least when I applied, Scripps took best combined SAT). Everything looks in-range and competitive, but not particularly unique (although some of your activities look like they could be framed much more excitingly on the actual application). Is merit aid any kind of issue?</p>
<p>I don't know details about the neuro program myself, but I've heard excellent things. I've worked with three of the professors who sometimes teach in the department (Keeley, Scott-Kakures, and Milton...the first two are philosophy professors at Pitzer and Scripps, respectively, and the third is a joint science biology professor from Scripps), and all three are excellent. I think that neuro is actually a pretty popular major, but I can only think of 3 Scripps graduates off the top of my head--two from '07 and one from '06 (I don't know what one is doing now, the other was choosing between UCSD and Harvard for a PhD, and the third is a research assistant at Stanford, deciding whether or not she wants to pursue a PhD). I'd say that it's definitely a program worth your time, and worth researching further.</p>
<p>You'll find the advantages and disadvantages of liberal arts education (vs. research universities) debated pretty hotly all over CC. Obviously, having gone and loved the LAC route, I'm going to offer you a rather skewed perspective. You might try visiting both types of campus, sitting in on courses at each, maybe even spending a night on each (pref. a Thursday, when you're able to see a good cross-section of academic and social life). But personally, I didn't think there was a downside to the LAC element of Claremont, with the possible exception of low name-recognition. To cover some of the basic tenets of the argument for LACs (which should not be seen as a direct argument against Universities, because certainly some of these can apply to both)...</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The professors are there primarily to teach you, and they make this an absolute priority. At the same time, the schools are sufficiently well endowed and prestigious that the professors are able to keep up on research, so nothing is stagnant. </p></li>
<li><p>The administration caters to the interests of the students. Classes are small and accessible (I can count three classes that I had that were around 40 students, and those were my big ones. As early as freshman year, I had classes with 5-10 students).</p></li>
<li><p>It's usually pretty easy to get what you want (this goes for dorm rooms, fresh cookies at dinner, and special permission to take certain courses)...the benefits, both academic and otherwise, are just as you'd expect from a small school. In every way, undergrad students are the focus of attention.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I personally love discussion-based classes, knowing my professors as people (and having them know me in the same way), an accessible administration, and a navigable campus. I had no need for a major sports scene, Greek scene, or campus name. Research opps are fairly irrelevant to my field (though this is where the majority of the LAC vs. University debate seems to lie, experience has shown me that Claremont's opportunities are excellent). Some people feel that LACs are too much like high school--they think that some facelessness, and the independence that comes along with it, are crucial. At Claremont, your professors are never going to babysit you, and some will take the "whatever...come when you feel like it" approach, but many will instate policies like mandatory attendance, discussion leading for credit, "participation" credit, and so forth--things you can grade in a 15 person classroom but not in a 100 person lecture hall. </p>
<p>Finally, a common complaint about LACs is that they're just too small...you can feel trapped. I found Claremont ideal because you have your own niche in your school. The consortium, even in its entirety, is pretty small, but still allows for some facelessness. A good mix, in my experience, but not ideal for either the student who wishes to know everyone or the student who wishes to remain anonymous.</p>
<p>Anyway, the essence of the matter is that LACs vs. Universities seem to boil down to personal preference. Remember, as you do more research, that Claremont doesn't fit neatly into either category (nor does Scripps fit neatly into the category of "women's college"). To say that the consortium offers the best of all worlds is cliche, but in many ways true. If you have a more detailed idea about what you want out of your college experience, you might be able to get some more personalized feedback on this issue.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>