@doschicos thank you!
@payn4ward, re: SLACs with STEM:
One factor we looked at was PhD production rates (i.e., percentage of undergraduates who go on to earn a PhD). For a quick sort you can look at [this data](Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College) provided by Reed. You can explore the raw data in depth and over different time periods with [url= <a href=“https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar/%5DWebCASPAR%5B/url”>https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar/]WebCASPAR[/url].
Using that data, our spreadsheet included an estimate of what percentage of a school’s STEM undergrads went on to earn a STEM doctorate in the last decade. It’s a rough measure in many ways, not least of which: there are many highly successful uses of an undergrad STEM degree that don’t involve getting a PhD. But it does give some indication of the quality of preparation for research and the interest level and drive of the peer group.
Within our list of schools to explore, Reed, Swarthmore, Carleton and Grinnell have outstanding PhD production track records (roughly 30-33% of STEM BA’s go on to earn a PhD). The next tier (within our list) includes Wesleyan, Haverford, Amherst, Williams, and Pomona (20-25% of STEM BA’s go on to earn PhDs).
Note that among the schools named above, Wesleyan and Amherst have a relatively low percentage of students pursuing STEM majors (15-17%). The schools with greater than 25% studying STEM are Carleton, Swarthmore, Haverford, Reed, & Pomona.
STEM Ph.D. to many is a matter of choice rather than a matter of capability. U research labs need a lot of Ph.D. Students to do research for professors. STEM Ph.D. students are often times fully funded. PhD is very different than say MD in terms of selectivity. So I think it’s misleading to judge the quality of undergraduate stem training in a college based on eventually how many graduates choose to pursue Ph.D. In stem.
“choose to pursue Ph.D.” is one thing but “earning a doctorate” is another. They don’t just hand out the degrees after 5-9 years even in STEM. There are a lot of weeding out and attrition. (Incidentally, I have a PhD.) Thus, I think that this stat does tell something about “quality of preparation for research and the interest level and drive of the peer group.”
These stats are often used to dispel the myth, “My child wants to study Science/Engineering so he/she should not go to a SLAC but a larger University where he/she can do research.”
If a high school student already has taken many college level classes and performed research with professors during the summers, then he/she could run out of stem classes to take at SLACs. A large research university would be a better choice for him/her as the student can take graduate level classes there.
For other students, I think the choice between SLACs or universities are the same as in any other majors. Personal fit.
@payn4ward As a matter of fact, if one can stick to it for 5-9 years, more likely than not, one will get their phD. The requirements/challenges of different PhD programs are factored in admission selectivity. In other words, if you are admitted it’s assumed that you have the capability to eventually get the degree. At the minimum, the number/rates of graduates getting STEM phD is not a reliable measurement of undergraduate education for say top 100 colleges.
Well, top 100 colleges admit students who will be successful wherever they go or whatever they do.
Percentages of earning PhDs show that SLAC education is not a disadvantage for STEM students but possibly an advantage.
Most grad school attrition occurs during first three years. After 5-9 years, 1-2 out of 10 students do not earn STEM PhD. I don’t know if that’s high or low, that’s your call. I do not know how many MDs failed to get license after medical school.