<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. OK, bring on the ad hominem attacks. </p>
<p>Look, I’ve been both an undergrad and a grad student. I’ve taught both undergrads and grad students. My own daughter will be an undergrad beginning next year, and her college search is focused exclusively on LACs—with my blessing, though I think in some ways she doesn’t fully appreciate what she’ll be missing by not being at a major research university. But there are compensating benefits in the small, comforting, nurturing womb of a good LAC, and perhaps she’s right that it’s the best undergrad environment for her. It wouldn’t be for some students, but it’s a valid educational model. I have no problem with that. But to suggest I do “not understand the difference between an undergraduate and graduate education” is simply preposterous, and downright risible.</p>
<p>This thread is about research. My only point is that the research effort at LACs pales in comparison to that at major research universities. That much I think is incontrovertible. Not so say there is no research at LACs, but what goes on will tend to be small-scale, often small-bore, and usually at the margins of the discipline—not the kind of research that is likely to produce major advances in human knowledge. And that’s fine; not every person or institution needs to produce major advances in human knowledge. LACs are particularly well suited to producing well-rounded generalists, some of whom will specialize later—and some of whom, usually with the benefit of specialization and in-depth training at the graduate level at a major research university, will go on to produce major advances in human knowledge. But LACs are simply not research powerhouses, and anyone who thinks they are is either badly misinformed, or delusional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, “rocket,” you do the math. First, though, I think your question betrays a basic misunderstanding about how research universities work. There is no “Berkeley undergrad” as opposed to “Berkeley grad” or whatever it is you imagine stands in opposition to “Berkeley undergrad.” The physics faculty is the physics faculty, undergrad and grad; the chemistry faculty is the chemistry faculty, and so on and so forth. </p>
<p>But do the numbers. I’m less familiar with Berkeley than with my own undergrad alma mater, Michigan, where total research expenditures in the survey barrons cites are listed at $800 million/year (though the University’s own figures say they now exceed $1 billion). Divided by 26,000 undergrads, $800 million comes out to a cool $30K+ in research expenditures per undergrad. Pomona shows research expenditures of $3.1 million; over a student base of 1,532, that comes out to about $2,000 per undergrad, putting Michigan’s research expenditures per undergrad more than an order of magnitude higher than Pomona’s. Now granted, Michigan also has some grad students figured into the mix, but even so, given the scale and scope of research they’re able to do with that money, not to mention its cutting-edge quality, it seems to me there are going to be far superior opportunities for the talented and self-motivated student at Michigan to leap into the fray and get the kind of hands-on experience with state-of-the-art research that the Pomona student is going to get only in grad school.</p>
<p>LACs have many virtues. Cutting-edge research is not one of them.</p>