<p>A lot of universities have well-respected bio, physics, math, and chem programs, but what about LACs? Do sciences at any top LACs compare to sciences at HYPS and other elite schools? If yes, which ones and at which schools?</p>
<p>beagle, All of the academically rigorous LACs (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Wellesley) have excellent math and science programs. The one I'm most familar with is Williams and I would say, yes, the caliber of the math and science programs compare to HYPS. The difference is that you don't have the graduate schools to draw on as you would at a university; however, the teaching, mentoring, research opportunities, graduate school entree, and career networking are tremendous. </p>
<p>There are plenty of other LACs in the next tier of selectivity (selectivity not quality of education!) that offer excellent sciences as well. There are simply too many to list, but just in the northeast you have Smith, Wesleyan, Bowdoin, Hamilton.</p>
<p>Two words: Harvey Mudd...</p>
<p>Though it's not your traditional LAC.</p>
<p>Oberlin; Haverford; Grilnnell...</p>
<p>Take a look at these</a> data about Ph.D productivity -that is, which undergraduate colleges produce the most future Ph.Ds. LACs are way overrepresented compared to universities like HYPetc. The ones that come up the most are Reed, Swarthmore, Grinnell, Oberlin, Harvey Mudd, and Carleton.</p>
<p>Colgate comes to mind. </p>
<p>And Middlebury. </p>
<p>Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>Oh - and Barnard, if you're female.</p>
<p>It's basically the LAC branch of Columbia.</p>
<p>To cut a long story short - any of the top LAC's will provide you with a first-rate education in any of the sciences.</p>
<p>Heavensbeagle:</p>
<p>I am a strong LAC supporter but would disagree with momrath's statement (and Northeastern provincialism?) discussing the blanket strength of science/math departments across top LACs. The story is a fair amount more complex. These schools virtually all have broad strength in large, well represented departments outside the sciences (e.g. economics, poli sci, english, history, psychology) as well as in their pretty uniformly popular biology major. In smaller departments, your mileage may vary. </p>
<p>Some schools simply have poor student representation in the sciences and math/CS in general (different strokes/different interests). At Amherst and Bowdoin, only about 14% of graduates major in math, CS, or the biological/physical sciences. This will have an impact on the depth of some departmental and research opportunities in schools of this size. Outside of superb but pure tech Mudd, there are colleges that have traditionally attracted more students in these fields, e.g.:</p>
<p>Carleton sits at about 33%, Swarthmore/Williams/Grinnell/Reed at about 25%.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, these are also the schools that tend to yield PhDs in high numbers in these fields as quaere has already pointed out. Even here, when dealing with traditionally smaller departments in the sciences, exercise caution. In geology, for example, Carleton may offer one of the best departments to be found anywhere, but dont even look for the major at otherwise excellently well-rounded Swarthmore. Alternatively, if youre a math wiz with enough course work under your belt to dive freshman year straight into number theory and real analysis, you may want to look at Williams very popular and remarkably deep department to insure you dont exhaust options in the field by senior year.</p>
<p>Long/short, no blanket answers. LACs will offer excellent educational opportunities with unbeatable classroom teaching in the sciences and math/CS, but you should consider the strengths and weaknesses of each school in the context of your own specific needs.</p>
<p>wbwa, beagle's question was whether the "top" LACs, which I loosely defined as meaning Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Wellesley, are comparable to HYPS in "bio, physics, math, and chem." I stand by my answer, yes, they are in the areas that I referenced: teaching, mentoring, research opportunities, graduate school entree, and career networking.</p>
<p>When you get into other disciplines like geology, anthropology, computer science for example the offerings are less broad and less consistent. I would never purport that LACs are for everyone or that they all excel in every area; however the question was very specific.</p>
<p>Wesleyan is the only LAC with its own Ph.d programs in math, and the natural sciences. It means there's funded research from outside sources going on all during the school year, not just during summer breaks. It has one of the highest rates of published, student co-authored, research papers in the country.</p>
<p>Something I feel I should mention with regards to "research opportunities" at LACs:</p>
<p>Simply put, it's hard for an undergraduate to make serious, hardcore, extremely useful contributions to research in math and science. For any undergraduate, anywhere, especially in my opinion in math and physics, but also in biology and chemistry.</p>
<p>The reason for this is that math and science are very advanced, and require a lot of training and coursework to get to the level of truly understanding the current, cutting edge research literature. In physics, to name one example, you usually need to have advanced understanding of graduate electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, oftentimes classical and quantum field theory. And then you have to learn all about the advanced details of the topic of your sub-specialty. Simply put, it's HARD for most undergrads to gain a level of background in mathematics and science to really seriously contribute at the level that graduate students or postdocs do. This is to be expected of course.</p>
<p>But the reason I am bringing it up is because I think it is for this reason that, for undergraduate at least, the breadth and depth and type of research that is offered is not so important. What is more important in my opinion is that you have good role model faculty members and student peers who can help you build up your bag of tools and skill set. To be a good graduate student and overall researcher, you should understand how to perform experiments, how to program and code, how to write and communicate (VERY IMPORTANT!!), and most importantly, HOW TO LEARN NEW THINGS INDEPENDENTLY! There will always be new things to learn when one is doing research, such as different programming languages, various experimental techniques, conceptual theories, etc... You have to have the ability to figure things out for yourself.</p>
<p>Most high school students, when they first start college, do not really understand what true serious research is like and how it is conducted (I know this, my professors have told me of their experience with undergrads). It is therefore important that you have people who will look over you, and slowly, carefully wean you and polish your skills. That way, with proper care and attention, by the time you have graduated, your abilities and understanding of how science and math are really done has matured to the appropriate level.</p>
<p>The importance of understanding how to do research cannot be underestimated. Without this understanding, it really doesn't mean that much if you have so many different professors working on so many different problems and projects. You have to develop the skill set and the knowledge base to be able to maturely, independently, productively contribute to such a research project. Which brings me back to my initial point, that one should not really worry too much about certain state schools or universities having more cutting edge research than LACs. While you are still an undergrad, it is more important that you have some research there period, and that you have people who help you develop your research abilities. That way, by the time you are a graduate student, you can really, successfully contribute to those cutting edge groups at the larger schools. I think LACs in general do a better job of helping this personal development along, and I think that's why so many LAC alumni can successfully complete Ph.D's.</p>
<p>A Wesleyan professor of computer science, a professor of biology; his Ph.D. candidate, two BA/MA students; AND an undergraduate of the Class of '08, all co-authored an article published in the Feb. 11-15 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Identifying the Fundamental Units of Bacterial Diversity: A Paradigm Shift to Incorporate Ecology into Bacterial Systematics".</p>
<p>I dunno, is that cutting edge enough?</p>