<p>thanks.</p>
<p>hmmm aussieland is out. i'd rather go to fass.</p>
<p>yup i thought the uk would be a better option for me. but my mum keeps telling me not to rule out america totally cos of the exchange rate -_- sing dollar's stronger against the us dollar vis a vis the pound.</p>
<p>financially, can afford lah, but will blow a huge chunk of the parents' savings...</p>
<p>would it make a difference if i applied to US colleges without requesting for fin aid?</p>
<p>people in that grade range have made it to michigan</p>
<p>strong ECs not required</p>
<p>aid or no aid makes a HUGE difference at non neeed blind colleges.. i think you can make it to pomona even.. one sporean got into pomona with A Levels less spectacular than yours IF (big IF) I'm not mistaken</p>
<p>verse, if you have the time and the money, just go ahead and apply. put your best into it. you never know what you'll get :)</p>
<p>hmmm i see.</p>
<p>haha well any reccomendations on colleges i can look at? LACs welcome too.</p>
<p>serf mentioned michigan. shall go look at the website...</p>
<p>verse,</p>
<p>YOU is right. I am that anamolous student who got in with only 1 A. My counterpart who also got in and is attending with me - the other Singaporean - has 4 As. Sometimes I wonder how I actually got in. Maybe they were looking for more diversity. Maybe they liked the essays I wrote. Maybe my SAT, SAT2, and AP scores (took privately) helped to mitigate the damage my A levels wrought. Regardless, verse, you definitely have a chance. But do a lot of research. I suggest going to USEIC (United States Education Information Center) and looking for Karen - the main US counselor over there. She's extremely knowledgeable and has helped many many Singaporeans get into the ivys and other reputable places. Look at Princeton Review, Fisk Guide, or other guidebooks. Attend information sessions. Go to the college websites.</p>
<p>Do you have any idea of what you are thinking of studying?</p>
<p>An initial list of LACs to look at would be:</p>
<p>Williams
Amherst
Swarthmore
Wesleyan
Pomona
Carleton
Grinnell
Dartmouth - It's an ivy but it's like an LAC
Vassar
Claremont McKenna
Harvey Mudd (You like engineering and physics?)
Reed</p>
<p>Here's my few cents worth of the viability of the LAC: </p>
<p>There is a reason why the Education Ministry is looking into liberal arts education. Unbeknownst to many Singaporeans, the presidents of the Claremont Colleges (5 liberal arts colleges, which includes Pomona) recently visited Singapore and talked to several senior officials in the Education Ministry on assisting Singapore in setting up a liberal arts college.</p>
<p>About LACs:
LACs offer a bachelor of Arts/Science degrees. All they do not offer are Masters/Doctorates.</p>
<p>'Liberal Arts' do not mean the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We study art, in a haphazard and pseudo-creative fashion, with dreams of future celebrity status in New York.</p></li>
<li><p>We study a bit of everything but actually don't know anything. "Too general lah", "not solid", "not specific/not useful".</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Liberal arts colleges have distribution requirements (and so do National Universities). In my school, Pomona College, we have to take 1 class in 5 areas - for example, a chemistry/geology class to satisfy a science requirement, a calculus/logic class to satisfy the math requirement, a theatre/music class to satisfy fine arts, and econ/politics to satisfy a social science requirement, and so on. Everyone has freedom to choose whatever classes they please - they are by no means limited by the categories. One of my friends has taken a computer science class, a politics class, a chemistry class, a math class, and an english class, and since we don't have to declare a major until after our second year, he still has time to register for a macroecon class or a french class.</p>
<p>Having said that, we do specialize in the end. LACs allow students to double major, and many in my school do. Many of the seniors have done stuff like double majoring in physics and english, or math and history, or econ and french. So we go as in depth as ANY place in terms of a bachelors degree. Think of a major as being equivalent to a degree. It's equally rigorous. To call us a place of general or shallow learning, its students mere dilettantes, and its institution a joke is to reflect misinformation.</p>
<p>Some reactions include this:</p>
<p>"Huh? Why so weird one, want to study this, study that, aiya just do business or engineering, safer! Can find job. What for do history, or what environmental thing, or english. All useless!"</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I was already well acquainted with this sentiment in my JC years, when someone asked me if I was taking any S-Papers. I replied that I was taking one, and it was English. Her reaction: "Huh, why so weird one?" (Note: Regardless of who you are, such a lack of such social graces is not going to get you far.)</p>
<p>A few things come to my mind:</p>
<p>There are a lot of business majors. If you want to work for the major corporations, just being a business major is hardly going to give you any leg up. You'll need to prove that you have good internships under your belt e.g. DeutschBank, Credit Suisse, GIC etc, as well as excel in your studies, and become active in your school - president of a business society etc, plus recs from your professors, glowing ones at that too.</p>
<p>At a investment banking division of a major bank I was very lucky to work at ( no disclosure), I observed the following "demographic"</p>
<ol>
<li>4 University of Melbourne grads</li>
<li>2 University of NSW grads</li>
<li>1 U Sydney grad</li>
<li>1 Harvard grad</li>
<li>1 U Penn grad</li>
<li>1 Columbia University (Fu School) grad</li>
<li>1 NTU grad</li>
</ol>
<p>In the entire investment banking division, there was one rep from a local U. Please don't construe this as a statement against local Unis. I am rather trying to point out the reality of getting into an investment banking or high profile firm with a business degree. Same goes for even grads from schools like NUS Law/Medicine. The VP of that division basically said as a matter of fact that many local U grads simply did not have the exposure required to be able to adapt to the rigors and demands of investment banking. Note, I was not in the information technology dept - maybe the recruitment stats are different over there.</p>
<p>If you are from a local U, and you're ****ed, that's what he said. If you're driven and do other things beside getting As, good for you! You'll go far. Sadly, that is hardly the mindset of many of our peers. You may have seen my remarks in the NUS thread on what I said about the FASS. They need to improve - the faculty, the student body, if they want to provide an education that is going to prepare them for success in the workplace.</p>
<p>The good LACs have pretty good recruitment. Many go into consulting/i-banking, while others into law/government firms. Many go into grad school, but others find themselves doing work in NGOs or education work.</p>
<p>Check out the job placement stats of graduates from LACs. What's their average salary? What kind of internships are students getting? How's their career development office? All these are excellent sources of information.</p>
<p>As for questions on cost, recently Amherst college announced that their school is becoming need blind to international students. We're pushing for Pomona College to do the same. Other places like Oberlin College are also looking for talented Singaporeans, and will give very generous financial aid.</p>
<p>I wanted an LAC because I wanted a place where I got to interact with my professors on a daily basis. I wanted to be challenged by talented peers. I wanted competition within myself to succeed, and not play the zero sum game I played in the A levels and the game that I see too often in local Unis. I wanted a broad, yet deep education, that would prepare me to work in almost any industry in an increasingly globalized world. Of course, I wanted a place where I could have fun too. Frisbee in the lawn? Reading law by the pool? Attending a talk by Bono? Listening to John Mayer live? Choose a good LAC, and you will not lose out in education. Chances are MORE than likely that if you challenge yourself and grow, you'll not only land up with plenty of grad school and job offers, but also with close friends (both students and professors) - 4 years you will never, ever forget.</p>
<p>Not relevant to Singapore? Singapore's changing. Government scholars (e.g. A Star) in my batch went to Carleton College and Bryn Mawr because even the ministry knows the undergrad focus in the top LACs give excellent training in the sciences - theory, research and projects.</p>
<p>Dear Singaporeans, if you're still unconvinced and insist on throwing the proverbial egg at the walls of the LAC, go ahead. I'm not interested in a "you are wrong, I am right" argument. This is, after all just an internet forum. I have nothing to prove. If you want more information though, I will be more than happy to assist.</p>
<p>D.T.,I didn't mean to say that you're mediocre.. all I wanted to tell Verse is that he's got a chance.. you must have done something right (essays, ECs) to get in.. the US admissions process is holistic.. and if you can be an intern at an IB, you must be something..</p>
<p>DT, when did you do your internship? Did you do it in the US/Singapore?.. How did you get it?..</p>
<p>PS I'm not from Spore</p>
<p>^^ D.T., BEST post ever by a Singaporean (or anyone else) on LACs.</p>
<p>YOU,</p>
<p>lol no I didn't think you were insinuating that. I was just validating what you said earlier.</p>
<p>Yup, verse definitely has a chance. See, what I find a lot of Singaporeans doing is this:</p>
<p>They sit around in a school canteen/home and start discussing US college.</p>
<p>"Er, so my teacher thinks I should apply to some US unis, what do you think?"</p>
<p>So, the parents, well-meaning and all, basically list: HYPSM. -.-'' Classmates say about the same thing, although a few may add in Amherst or Williams (because Goh Chok Tong did his Masters there)</p>
<p>Considering the fact that Harvard has already eliminated all transfer applications due to the sheer number of freshman applications and that the acceptance rate is 7.1 percent, and with all the aforementioned schools having similar miniscule acceptance rates, that may not be the best course of action to take.</p>
<p>I did my internship in Singapore, and I got in through a 'older' friend I knew while working to organize a government event. Apparently he volunteers to work with grassroots organizations during his free time, and we got to work together on this project. I got to know him pretty well, so after army, I asked him (somewhat presumptuously) if there was a chance I could actually intern at his bank, and he said yes. Not the most conventional way to get an internship, but we worked well together and I didn't think there was any harm in asking.</p>
<p>I did this internship last year from Jan - Mar.</p>
<p>screwitlah,</p>
<p>I try =) There's a lot more in those College Search and Selection Forums though.</p>
<p>^^ agreed</p>
<p>sellout though ;p
(jk!)</p>
<p>woah thanks for the long reply DT...really appreciate it.</p>
<p>hmm for my case i'm not interested in studying science or mathematics related subjects/modules AT ALL. closest stuff i can think of which i'm open to that's related would be psychology or econs related stuff. i'm very much a humanities/languages/writing type person. do the science modules you have to take affect your final degree honours grade?</p>
<p>and actually i'm already more or less set on UK, if i'm not staying local. reason being, but NOT limited to the pragmatic concern of being able to get an honours degree in 3 years in the uk. (parents getting very old already must start to earn money faster -_-) but i'll still take some time out to look at some of the colleges you've listed. thanks!</p>
<p>PS totally agree with the typical singaporean sentiment of 'study this for what?!'...i've gotten that EVERYTIME i tell people, especially the older generation that i was doing arts without maths in jc...and i get that too now everytime i tell people i won't be doing engineering/business/econs at uni but history or comm studies instead...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not trying to start a fight here, i just want to clarify something with D.T., i understand that a major in LACs/US unis takes up anywhere from 60% to 80% of your courseload, so assuming that quality of education and student motivation are not too atrocious elsewhere, will a LAC education be as in-depth as one that has 100% of its courseload tailored to the specific field (regardless of whether depth > breadth or vice versa)?</p>
<p>as to verse, i would say try to ace your SATs, and give yourself a wider range of choices....while AAC is a decent grade, it probably wont be enough to grant you access to the best UK unis, given the lacklustre job prospects in the UK and the typical SG employer's extremely myopic either "HYPSM oxbridge or local" worldview, you probably wont do very well when it comes to employment....the US route would be more versatile, with plenty of job opportunities and the option of going to a prestigious grad school to give u the branding you need to make it big back in SG</p>
<p>wow, kudos to DT for that amazing post on LACs! </p>
<p>to LBW, your concern about the depth vs. breadth is a somewhat valid one. but really, it has more to do with the US system in general rather than pertaining specifically to LACs. in general, most universities function similar as LACs in terms of major requirements , unless we're talking about pre-professional schools. so whether you're at harvard or amherst, your major is likely to take up merely half your courseload or less (it actually is much less than the 60-80% you mentioned), some schools like middlebury or my school, connecticut college, specifically said that you can't take more than 16 (out of 32) courses in a single department. The point is obvious: to make sure that you obtain sufficient breadth which is the whole point of a liberal arts education. And yes you are right, as far as depth is concerned, I am almost positive that we learn less stuff in a particular discipline than our counterparts in UK or local universities do. But then again, if you're not on a pre-professional path, does amount of subject matter that you learn in school matter that much really? The proponent of a US-styled education will probably argue that it doesn't, that the articulation skills as well as critical and creative thinking skills, which LACs or US unis in general are arguably better at developing, matter more in the global economy today. </p>
<p>Not to be a downer here, but as great an education as you might get at a good LAC, there are many downsides that you should keep in mind when considering going to a LAC: </p>
<p>1) Most people - substitute with "virtually everyone" if you don't go to Amherst or Williams - you meet will go "huh?" when you tell where you go to college. And they'll probably think you flunked your A'levels and couldn't make it to NUS/NTU/SMU. So you either stomach that or you go on and on explaining the entire concept of liberal arts colleges to them, which leads to the next problem. </p>
<p>2) Most people will go "huh you're studying ARTS? i never knew you were interested in that!" So you continue to explain the definition of liberal arts to them. </p>
<p>3) Job opportunities, local and to a less extent in the US. Okay in the US, most LAC graduates have no problem finding jobs, partly because most of them come from extremely well-to-do families with extensive connections. As for the international students, if you're looking to go into the extremely competitive industries such as consulting or investment banking, that you might be severely disadvantaged if you don't go to a target school - a term that means where the top investment banks and consulting firms go on campus to recruit at. Very very few LACs are considered targets - Amherst, Williams, and maybe Middlebury and Pomona are considered semi-targets. This doesn't mean that firms don't recognize the calibre of LAC students. It's just a matter of fact that the small number of students at a LAC (and thus less number of students interested in IB/Consulting) doesn't justify going down there to recruit. As for job opportunities back in SG, I figure that you probably would have a lot of explaining to do to your HR, but if you have decent A'levels to back you up and prove that you didn't go to a LAC because you couldn't get into local unis, I believe you should do fine... But honestly, I feel like the best path is to get a great undergraduate education at a LAC, and then do graduate studies at a prestigious grad school (master's or PhD depending on your interest and career path) to make up for the lack of reputation of your undergrad school. Most LAC graduates go to grad schools anyway, and LACs typically feed well into top grad programs. </p>
<ol>
<li>Lack of Singaporeans. This may sound trivial, but it really isn't. Suppose you go to Cornell or UMich or UChic, you'll be surrounded by so many Singaporeans that you sometimes don't realize you're studying overseas. I'm not saying that it's imperative that you go to a school with a ton of singaporeans and then keep amongst yourselfs in a clique. That's defeats the purpose of going overseas to study. But having a comfort zone of singaporean friends really helps a lot when you're far away from home. At a liberal arts college, you would be lucky to find someone in your year who's going to the same college as you. The upside is that it forces you to make friends with the americans, or other people whom you might not befriend otherwise; but trust me, you'll feel lonely sometimes and look at friends at Cornell/Chicago/Brown/UMich/Duke with envy and wish that you had the company of some friends from home..</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>while i acknowledge the unique benefits of an LA education, ^^ is arguable...</p>
<p>1)articulation - any school that has a fair amount of participatory learning would hone a student's articulation and presentation skills, be it in the arts/humans/social sciences or the natural/bio med sciences, i dont see why having a LA curriculum will necessarily make you more eloquent</p>
<p>2)critical thinking - ANY fairly rigorous field of study will stimulate critical thinking and analysis (apart from a degree in some hospitality or gardening crapshoot)....in fact, i would think that delving deeper would be more stimulating and engaging than glazing the surface of many subjects</p>
<p>3)creative thinking - the only tangible advantage of a LA education would be having an interdisciplinary approach/paradigm resulting from a fusion of knowledge from different fields....even so i have my doubts as to the extent of this, as its really arguable that taking one course in maths, one in science, one in arts etc. will equip you with the necessary foundation to draw substantial links between different fields</p>
<p>one thing thats beyond doubt is the vast financial resources that US unis have, exposing students to a slew of experiences and opportunities that will undeniable give them an edge over their peers in other countries....apart from that, i dont think that LA really value-add, though thats a personal opinion</p>
<p>woebegone, I agree with what you say except for this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay in the US, most LAC graduates have no problem finding jobs, partly because most of them come from extremely well-to-do families with extensive connections.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most LAC graduates come from families with connections? That statement sounds immediately dubious. LAC people come from everywhere; I'd say that well-connected families make up the minority. LAC grads have no problem finding jobs in the U.S. simply because people over there know LACs are (gasp!) elite.</p>
<p>longbowmen:
[quote]
1)articulation - any school that has a fair amount of participatory learning would hone a student's articulation and presentation skills, be it in the arts/humans/social sciences or the natural/bio med sciences, i dont see why having a LA curriculum will necessarily make you more eloquent
[/quote]
</p>
<p>U.S. schools do involve a lot more class participation - especially for LACs with their very small class sizes and close faculty interaction. And the teaching of these oratory skills is not about the curriculum alone, but more importantly the PEOPLE you're surrounded by. I think it's very fair to say that Americans are generally more outspoken, confident and articulate than Singaporeans. Trust me, their skills and their friendliness will rub off on you whether you like it or not. Moreover, all of my friends in overseas universities can attest to how they've forced themselves to speak up just simply because everyone else in class is basically fighting among themselves to speak. Nobody there is afraid of giving the wrong answers. It'll change you. Until NUS/NTU/SMU have a similar environment, I don't see how the local experience can compare to the overseas one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2)critical thinking - ANY fairly rigorous field of study will stimulate critical thinking and analysis (apart from a degree in some hospitality or gardening crapshoot)....in fact, i would think that delving deeper would be more stimulating and engaging than glazing the surface of many subjects
[/quote]
</p>
<p>staying with ONE subject for 4 years would bore me to death. I don't know about you, but I want at least my undergrad experience to be stimulating and engaging. Grad school is understandable.</p>
<p>Can anyone explain what's the SIM university in Singapore? I just recently heard of it and it doesn't seem to be very popular.. Just curious..</p>
<p>it's a private university that offers both fulltime and part-time degrees. the general perception is that its for those who can't make it into NUS SMU or NTU.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>actually i wasnt talking about local unis, as i posted in the NUS thread, theres an overemphasis on memorisation and regurgitation as compared to learning/absorbing in the local schools (take NUS med's 24/7 marathon mugging style for instance)....while LACs do benefit from the small size/high teacher-student ratio hence better class participation, most of the larger US unis dont, hence apart from the quality of the student body and finances, i dont see a distinct edge in the liberal arts education</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i think you are entitled to this opinion, but i still contest your point about the need for a broad but relatively less deep curriculum to stimulate and engage....i think it ultimately boils down to personal preference, a passionate individual who loves what his learning (be it broad, varied subjects or a single specific field) will do well regardless of the system, which again brings me to my point that while the LA education has its uniqueness, i dont see it as necessarily better or superior to other systems say the UK/Aus/Canada (student quality and finances aside)</p>
<p>LBW, there's a reason why i touted the benefits of a LAC education as a third person. The fact is, I am still not very convinced that LAC education trains analytical skills (creativity perhaps) better than a research university does. As you said, any reasonably rigorous curriculum can train one to think critically, and I concur. But I think that you would have to concede on the point about articulation. I don't think there's a zilch of doubt that US universities hone one's articulation skills better than local or UK unis (where one rarely have to speak up at all, except perhaps at SMU, where you're trained to do the wayang talk). In US universities, and especially so in a small liberal arts college, where you are in a class that is not only very small, but also one that is filled with naturally-outspoken americans, you will be encouraged (or forced) to speak up. And that, in the long run, naturally hones one's oratory skills more than just doing a couple of prepared-speech presentations in class every now and then, or the lame raise-your-hand-to-say-something-so-that-the-TA-can-put-a-check-next-to-my-name sort of class participation that the local unis are breeding. </p>
<p>As for the thing about connections. Well, there's a stereotype that says that LACs are filled with preppy, white, upper-class kids. And stereotypes, while not always accurate, always reflect some truth. Speaking from my own experience and based on my admittedly limited social circle, it seems like if someone's not on finaid or an international student, he's invariably a doctor's kid, a lawyer's kid, or an investment banker's kid. Okay that's obviously an exaggeration but you get what I mean. The point is, most people have some kind of connections, and even if they don't, they probably have a close friend who does.</p>