Thinking ahead to grad school...

Parents Forum
41

<p>interestingly enough, my sister goes to hope college and grad schools hated her.</p>

<p>my oldest brother went to earlham and med schools hated him.</p>

<p>my older brother went to yale and now he's at harvard medical school (number 1 med school in the country...one of the lucky 6 percent i guess).</p>

42

<p>"Son chose a "name" science LAC, first in grad school admissions in his discipline, over a full ride at a state school" </p>

<p>It's good to hear your son is thriving in the LAC environment. I would point out that you mentioned "name" and "science" in the same breath as LAC, so it seems that in the admissions process both were important. Some people seem to think that just putting students into classes with 5 other people will guarantee them success in anything they choose; however, when it comes to the sciences - particularly the applied sciences (and biology), where research is expensive, you have to be at a place that is at least minimally equipped to get some experience. </p>

<p>That said, people tend to underestimate the resources available at larger schools. Part of what you pay for with an LAC is access to such resources but with some legwork, you can access them anywhere. This is particularly true at the highly ranked research institutions - not only are there a lot of resources, not too many students are interested in using them (within a particular field). Another issue is that while there are summer programs that recruit students from across the country, there are usually very similar programs that recruit students from the same school (i.e. the Guidant program at UC Berkeley). And from the point of view of grad admissions (and getting publications), the best thing to do is to work in the same lab for a period of 2 or more years, not just a summer. </p>

<p>Finally, on the admissions and matriculation statistics for graduate schools: LACs have a reputation for sending people to graduate and professional schools. Part of their underlying philosophy is that your undergraduate education should be a broad foundation - which makes graduate education almost a foregone conclusion. That's quite different from the philosophy at some other places (notably technical schools like MIT) that send a high percentage of people directly into the workforce. It would be illustrative to look at the composition of students in some of the top-ranked engineering and science programs (and the more proliferative labs within those places) across the country; yes, there are a lot of people with degrees from LACs, but a disproportionately high number of people come from a handful of institutions that are all larger schools.</p>

43

<p>Yes, when LACs talk about their record of placing people into further higher education at other schools what they are partly saying, implicitly, is that their undergraduate degrees don't have as much oomph as the undergraduate degrees from schools that have many graduates going directly into lucrative careers.</p>

44

<p>Hi, Calkidd! Thanks for replying to my post.</p>

<p>To clarify: The "name" part of my reply was in response to the OP specifically. (I know I didn't make that entirely clear.) And yes--"science" in this context is important. If one is a serious science student (and I believe the OP was debating the grad school issue for science disciplines), then one ought to consider all science education venues. LACs should not be discounted automatically. In my son's case (he had actually gone to a state university in HS so was familiar with the environment), having direct access to excellent teaching faculty and being able to take small classes with like-minded peers were important issues to him. Even though the OP wasn't considering LACs in the original question, perhaps some young aspiring scientist reading this thread might now--because of what I posted--and will not dismiss them out of hand because of a faulty preconception.</p>

<p>"That said, people tend to underestimate the resources available at larger schools." And many people, especially high school students with no experience in college, tend to underestimate the importance of teaching... the quality of which tends to be better at top LACs, especially in the sciences. Why? No 100-plus-students lectures. No labs and recitation sections taught by grad students. No "star" prof who shows up for a lecture than disappears, leaving the actual teaching to TAs. The name of the "star" and the attendant cachet may be one of the reasons the student chose the school in the first place; but the "stars" are often more attendant to their grad students, books in progress, lecture circuit, and outside consulting than undergrads. Many people, especially prospies and their parents, don't realize that the reps of top research universities rest on the accomplishments of the <em>graduate</em> program, not the UG... with the resources available consumed by that which brings the laurels.</p>

<p>"This is particularly true at the highly ranked research institutions - not only are there a lot of resources, not too many students are interested in using them." I'm sure that's true, which supports the concluding point in my first post.</p>

<p>"Another issue is that while there are summer programs that recruit students from across the country, there are usually very similar programs that recruit students from the same school (i.e. the Guidant program at UC Berkeley). And from the point of view of grad admissions (and getting publications), the best thing to do is to work in the same lab for a period of 2 or more years, not just a summer." This was another issue my son wrestled with: whether to continue research with his outstanding mentor prof for another summer or try for a different experience in a different academic setting with different people with a different academic focus. He had no idea whether he would even be accepted somewhere else. The response was interesting. Not only was he accepted but recruited with e-mails and phone calls once his application hit, in both cases (so far; the other hasn't closed yet) just before or immediately following the app closing date. Was grad school mentioned? Yes. But he's only a soph; so he still has another summer next year to stay where he is or try something different entirely; by then, he will be further into his major with a more focused interest. I can't see that getting exposure to a wider variety of influential people at different institutions with different research interests would hurt in the long run, but in his case only time will tell.</p>

<p>"Part of [LACs'] underlying philosophy is that your undergraduate education should be a broad foundation - which makes graduate education almost a foregone conclusion." Again, that is why a serious science student who aspires to grad school should consider a well-regarded LAC. But I wouldn't say "foregone" necessarily. At son's school, <em>every</em> student is required to take the core of math, bio, chem, physics, CS, and engineering classes and humanities classes in addition. And it is not for the faint of heart. Perhaps that is why so many of the high-profile tech companies, national government labs, pharmaceutical companies, banking and finance institutions, etc., recruit the graduating seniors and UG summer interns.</p>

<p>As to the question of whether or not grads matriculate to "top" schools... I'll let the Gates and the Churchill committees speak for themselves. These were just announced yesterday [in an e-mail] after I posted. Pretty impressive for a little LAC with roughly 800 students, I think.</p>

<br>


<br>

45

<p>
[quote]
And many people, especially high school students with no experience in college, tend to underestimate the importance of teaching... the quality of which tends to be better at top LACs, especially in the sciences. Why? No 100-plus-students lectures. No labs and recitation sections taught by grad students. No "star" prof who shows up for a lecture than disappears, leaving the actual teaching to TAs. The name of the "star" and the attendant cachet may be one of the reasons the student chose the school in the first place; but the "stars" are often more attendant to their grad students, books in progress, lecture circuit, and outside consulting than undergrads. Many people, especially prospies and their parents, don't realize that the reps of top research universities rest on the accomplishments of the <em>graduate</em> program, not the UG... with the resources available consumed by that which brings the laurels.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't doubt the efficacy of LACs in its ability to teach science with its traditionally smaller and more personal classes, but I feel like I have to dispel preconceived notions about bigger schools. Don't be so quick to disregard them.</p>

<p>Yes, classes are large. All that means is the student has to take the initiative in contacting the professors, who are very available to students. The notion that "star" profs are crochety unapproachable men is a horrible stereotype. Incidentally I have two Nobel laureates as profs this semester and they are two of the most approachable friendly faculty members that I have met that are equally dedicated to teaching. That's not to say there are no professors who do fit the stereotype. I have had some professors who were simply horrible and only cared about their research/grad students/lunch. I simply may have had the fortune of not running into many people like them.</p>

<p>Yes, grad students teach recitation. I don't think it is a bad thing. I have only had two bad TAs throughout all my years here. The rest speak English very well, know their stuff, and actually are great teachers to boot. They often present a different approach to a subject, which is very helpful when trying to learn a concept.</p>

<p>Something that people often forget, and I personally contend this is one of the most important aspects to consider, is that there are usualliy more fields of study at larger institutions. When I started as an undergrad, I knew I wanted to do something "sciency or engineering". I explored a wide range of majors before settling down into something I never would have thought I would do. </p>

<p>All this applies to people interested in science/engineering. Most of this, especially that last bit, would be useless if you decided to study something in the liberal arts.</p>

46

<p>If a student were, say, applying for a prestigious MFA program, would it be more advantageous to be coming from a well known school, since you would build valuable connections with people who excelled in the field and could better instruct you?</p>

47

<p>shizz has covered most of the points i would have covered, but, well, a couple of things:</p>

<p>i think a lot of what shizz has said can also be related to non-science/non-engineering fields, actually. and "100-plus-students lectures" aren't always the case at big universities. this semester, my classes include a "100-plus-students" lecture and a six-student class (heh, well, 7 if you include the professor! yes, the professor is teaching).
also, regarding contact with professors - gosh, there are so many opportunities for that, actually - at least in my experience. :) i know there are actually people at my school who are upperclassmen and still haven't formed any close relationships with any of the professors, but it's not like one should wait for the professors to take the initiative, i think. in my experience, the professors were there if i wanted to build closer relationships with them, but it was up to me to take the initiative to make time to talk to them. and i liked having that choice in my hands.
as to the grad students that the "star" professors are busy with - well, i really like the way graduate students contribute to the atmosphere here at school. i have learnt so much from them and i've picked up a bunch of pointers/advice about grad school in the process of hanging out with them. another benefit of being at a university is the beauty of having grad school courses available to you. it's amazing, as an undergrad, to be in the same class with people who are writing dissertations about topics you are passionate about. i think i take better to "learning" when the teaching is done not just by a teacher/professor but also by the stimulation and motivation my peers provide... if made to choose, i suspect i'd rather have a classroom full of incredibly intelligent students and a fumbling teacher instead of a classroom with one smart teacher and bored disinterested students. but different people do have different learning styles, i know. having the grad school and its students around is actually one of the reasons why i'm personally really glad i chose to be here over an LAC. i like having the mix of "100-student-lectures" and small classes available to me because i appreciate the freedom of choosing the size of my classes (to a certain extent, anyway - i mean, one would never find "calculus I" as a small class here!)... and admittedly, i like being able to skip some large-lecture classes, because the large-lecture classes are usually intro-level courses containing basic material that can be studied on my own time, heh. the higher level classes here are (at least in my experience) decently small and good for discussions, which also appeals to me - basically, i like being cut some slack when it comes to more "busy work" basic classes, and i like being able to choose which small classes i want, when i want to concentrate and delve deep into things that i'm really interested in.<br>
i guess that it's ultimately up to the student (or prospective student) to get a good perspective of each type of school's merits and negatives, and see which type of education would fit the student's learning style and personality. i have a lot of friends at LACs and they're really happy at their schools, but i think it's also partly because they have learning styles and personalities that thrive best in an LAC environment. :) i guess that what i'm saying isn't particularly new, since everyone here at CC is always talking about finding a school that is a "fit", but, well, yeah, it's true. :)</p>