<p>
</p>
<p>This may well be so. But what does seem to be a “consequence of the college being small” is the extent to which a particular dimension of a college’s culture - such as, for example, that reflected by a relatively high rate of “Ph.D. production” - tends to dominate the institutional culture and the experience of the students who go there. </p>
<p>While this will not be any news to many CCers, a few years ago, when my son and I were visiting a number of schools - both LACs and larger (but mid-size) research universities - the most striking thing to us about the LACs was that each school did indeed appear to have a very strong dominant culture and to attract students who were seeking that particular culture. On the other hand, the larger (but still mid-size) universities seemed not to have any particular dominant culture; rather, they had a plurality of cultures. Just as with the difference between living in a small town and living in a city, neither a small LAC nor a mid-size research university, of course, is any “better” or “worse” than the other - just different. </p>
<p>Is a college’s “Ph.D. production” relevant to the sort of experience that a prospective student might have there? Yes, perhaps. But in trying to compare different schools, this factor (like many others) probably has significance only where the difference in “production” is extremely substantial. Smaller differences, on the other hand, are more likely to be misleading than illuminating, as is often the case with statistical differences. And in any event, the rate of “Ph.D. production” certainly does not provide (as the OP suggests) a meaningful basis for “ranking” a school’s “academic quality.”</p>