"Small Colleges: Tops in Training Scientists"

<p>Just some food for thought - be open to considering the not so obvious schools when searching for fit:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=732&pf=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=732&pf=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The large schools still produce vastly more students earning PhD's. This is just statistical crap. If the same percentages of large school grads considered going to grad school, the grad schools would be overwhelmed with students. The Top 10 large school grads could fill every PhD program in the US. I think much of it has to do with the inputs--kids who go to LAC's may be more interested in the academic track which for most people offers little payoff and can make one LESS employable.</p>

<p>Interesting article. Thanks for posting. I would have liked to see a long list with more examples of smaller colleges that have top-notch science education --- particularly chemistry. Women's colleges probably do a great job, but I've got a S so they don't apply. I have heard from others that the large universities with great chemistry programs are best to go to for graduate school, rather than UG and I suspect that's true.</p>

<p>bigred- <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3170087%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3170087&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Harvey Mudd in particular would be worth checking out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If a student cannot master the skills and knowledge in Chemistry 101, he or she cannot succeed in Chemistry 201. Small colleges do a better job of training scientists because their students are more likely to persist in comparison with science majors at large universities. A giant lecture course can offer little help to a student who stumbles on one unit in the course.

[/quote]

I find this rather dubious. Davidson, a pretty small LAC, has over 100 students in its intro chem class. This is comparable to the course size at UNC, roughly ten times larger than Davidson. Upper level courses at UNC can have fewer than 20 students.</p>

<p>Furthermore, some people complain that graduate student TAs are used too much in the sciences. Well, it's better than having advanced undergrads as TAs, like many LACs do! :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

<a href="http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/Goldwater32206.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/Goldwater32206.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>fantastic. one of the reasons why i'm such a proponent of small LACs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, some people complain that graduate student TAs are used too much in the sciences. Well, it's better than having advanced undergrads as TAs, like many LACs do!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or you can just have professors with PhDs from Harvard, Caltech, MIT, etc teaching 100% of the classes and answering questions personally (outside of "office hours"). I guess TAs still might be better than them though!</p>

<p>Percentage or per capita analyses are useful for comparing rates among things more or less the same size (i.e. large colleges with other large colleges or small with other small). But these analyses have a limitation when comparing large with small, because they will automatically favor the small over the large in much the same way that looking at absolute numbers will automatically favor the large. By focusing on percentages of Ph.D. production, the contest becomes one to find the tiniest college that produced one or two Ph.D.s.</p>

<p>Consider the case of the 1996 Olympics. The US won 101 medals and Tonga, a tiny polynesian island, won 1. So if you look at a rate per population or precentage you find that, thanks to its tiny population, Tonga won medals at a rate ~30 times greater than of the US. So is Tonga a greater athletic power than the US? Should aspiring Olympic athletes move to Tonga to train?</p>

<p>The point is that rates or percentage analyses should be used to compare scientist production among large schools or among small schools but are given to much error when trying to compare colleges of vastly different size. Otherwise, you are essentially asking which college is the Tonga of Ph.D. production.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Or you can just have professors with PhDs from Harvard, Caltech, MIT, etc teaching 100% of the classes and answering questions personally (outside of "office hours"). I guess TAs still might be better than them though!

[/quote]

If you're looking for top science programs, you'll be looking at the top LACs and universities. Not too many top universities allow graduate students to teach their own courses. I was primarily referring to labs. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you're looking for top science programs, you'll be looking at the top LACs and universities. Not too many top universities allow graduate students to teach their own courses. I was primarily referring to labs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well yeah, you also have 100% PhD professors teaching labs of about 20 students as well. I don't know of many labs that allow upperclass undergraduates to teach. I would think it's the contrary at LACs: you get more professors in labs instead of just TAs. I don't quite understand your point.</p>

<p>
[quote]
warblers... writes: Not too many top universities allow graduate students to teach their own courses.

[/quote]
Not quite right; actually it is not rare for grad students to teach courses. And I explicitly mean <em>teach</em> the course, not just lead the discussion section. The grad students at UC Berkeley (a top school in many people's book) went on strike a few years ago over the working conditions including the classes they were required to teach.</p>

<p>As for the OP, it is another meaningless statistic. Unless students are randomly assigned to attend a LAC or large public and the outcome observed, the numbers mean nothing. Do you really think the kid that attends Pomona or Middlebury is interchangeable with one attending the local SUNY or Cal-State?</p>