<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>
<p>I agree. Different students have different goals, priorities, and talents. Different colleges will fit some students better than others. To the extent they can predict, students should try to find colleges that match their goals, priorities, and talents. </p>
<p>There are likely more varied experiences at larger colleges than smaller ones. This depends to an extent on the nature of the college. For example, with its heavy math/science/engineering focus, the MIT experience may be more homogeneous, at least academically, than that at many smaller LAC’s.</p>
<p>The pre grad approach may be very well suited for graduate study in some fields. This would make such a college “better” for a student who A. Likes that kind of education (not everyone does) or B. Plans to go to get a PhD (most people don’t, even at the elite colleges). For someone who does not like that kind of education, or does not want a research career, it may be not nearly as valuable.</p>
<p>I don’t think one can come up with ANY single measure that describes the “academic quality” of a college. The phrase assumes the quality is unidimensional. There are too many variables. The PhD production figures are interesting because they focus on purely academic outcomes. But the narrowness of the measure limits it usefulness across the board. The same problem would apply with looking at the total advanced degree attainment of a student body. Not everyone wants one. Colleges can push this figure higher by selectively enrolling students who do want such degrees, and they do favor those who can afford to stay out of the workforce.</p>
<p>Since it is based on outcomes, rather than inputs, it is probably a better indicator of academic activity at the college than are SAT scores or class rank. Since PhD’s and professional degrees are largely exclusive-few people get both, looking at PhD’s without prof degrees might generate a distorted picture. </p>
<p>The PhD rates are illuminating because people tend to assume that fame, prestige, and endowment largely define the “top” colleges. The PhD rates show that very good education is taking place at colleges that lack some of these characteristics. I suspect that is why some people get so heated when disputing them.</p>
Reed certainly promotes its PhD production because it is substantially higher (along with the other schools on the lists) than at most other schools. Thus, I agree that it is generally not a meaningful basis for academic ranking at most schools; at best, it points out the outliers at the high end of academic level.</p>