<p>Comeon, isn't there SOMEONE who has a good opinion beyond "for a top student, they will do well anywhere." Are there any alum on this form that feel both that they were top students going into a college or university, and that the institution gave them some tools that were valuable later in life, that they would not have gotten anywhere else? Anyone go to WASP who were unimpressed with the tiny-school system?</p>
<p>What is WASP? White Anglo-Saxon Protestant? Or, perhaps you mean something else. Could you clarify?</p>
<p>WASP = Williams-Amherst-Swarthmore-Pomona (the HYPS of LACs)</p>
<p>I for one could not have done as well at a small school. I thrive in big research universities, and am glad I went to UCLA.</p>
<p>Oh, Pomona- got it. A large research university will give you resources that no liberal arts college could dream of, where LACS will provide you with attention that large research universities could only imagine. There is a great metaphorical account that someone gave on cc a while back about the two which you should search for. It had to do with food, as in the LACS being nice, personable restaraunts with limited selections but great food, and research universities being open, impersonal huge buffets. Search for it.</p>
<p>Oh, and know what is good for you, personally. If you realize that you do need lots and lots of personal attention, perhaps an LAC is the place for you. Not that you won't receive any at a research institution. I'm at Berkeley with one class of 15 total people and many "sections" with amazing graduate students that have about 15-35 people, as well as the lectures with the 100-200 people in them. It doesn't feel that big to me, but it might to you. "Know thyself." Chances are, though, that most people who are able to succeed in one environment would likely do well in the other.</p>
<p>I need not remind you that there are exceptions to the rule.</p>
<p>Of course. I'm wondering if students at WASP tend to have to do more work for their classes, hearing anectodal accounts this seems true. Also, many small schools seem to network and take the whole "alum connection" thing more seriously than big schools. Both of these things seem like fairly significant differences, so I'd be curious to know if anyone else notices these things. I've heard the model that particularly well-organized, independent students will have more resources at U.s. However, I haven't seen a program as intense and student-driven as Swarthmore's seminars anywhere else. Discuss.</p>
<p>As an alum of a LAC I can tell you that the professors expect students to contribute during class. There's not alot of no showing or sleeping in the back row among 400 others. It was part of my grade...sometimes in a lecture of 50 students, sometimes at a roundtable. As far as alum networking goes, the LAC alums know each other and do help each other out, but this is also true at places like Princeton or at State U's like University of Florida.</p>
<p>A resource is a funny kind of thing. Some of them are virtual, some of them are at hand. That is to say, some can be measured, others can only be experienced. It reminds me of how Max Dugan once explained Philosophy, when asked by his nephew if there was "any money it?" "Well," he said, "it all depends on which one you pick." I suspect Max was a LAC man.</p>
<p>Your question is unanswerable. I may feel that I acquired tools that were useful but how can I know what would have happened "anywhere else" ?</p>
<p>I attended a top LAC (not WASP) and two top universities --one Junior Year Abroad and one grad school. I gained valuable "tools" at all of them. If your question is are smaller high quality schools as valuable as universities, then I would say an LAC is suited only to certain personality types --those who value intimacy,depth and a certain "quirkiness" in their studies-- if you thrive on breadth, diversity and high power research, a top university may do more for you.</p>
<p>I am confused. If the big universities unique advantages is in research, would the LACs be better for all majors that don't involve a lot of sophisticated research such as liberal arts ( such as history, english), fine art, performance, music and even math etc?</p>
<p>I went to Williams, and UChicago, and also taught at the latter. I was a top student at both. I don't feel there were tools that I got at either place that I couldn't have gotten elsewhere. I received excellent education at both places. I also feel that the most important "tools" were those I received outside the classroom, and that the importance of the classroom experience itself was much overrated.</p>
<p>And had I to do it again, I'd go to Earlham.</p>
<p>Liberal arts schools tend to be strong in the liberal arts. Some of them have very strong science departments --but probably not all sciences are strong on any one campus and they probably don't have as much of the expensive fancy equipment that some research demands or as much choice among professor with different specialities. I don't think the biggest difference is in what you learn but in the intangibles "atmosphere" or " community feeling" or ethos --visit a few of each and you will sense the difference.</p>
<p>I agree with pyewacket. Go visit and you'll get a better idea. Hard to figure it out by guidebooks and talking to people . Best to experience a campus, however brief the visit. (Ironically, when I did an overnight at my alma mater I HATED it because the women I stayed with were odd. I decided to go anyway and had the best four years ever. You never know.)</p>
<p>"I am confused. If the big universities unique advantages is in research, would the LACs be better for all majors that don't involve a lot of sophisticated research such as liberal arts ( such as history, english), fine art, performance, music and even math etc?"</p>
<p>I question the premise. In my experience, the LACs offer unique advantages in research that the "average" undergraduate at big universities is not able to access. The very top students will get those opportunities in either case, but graduate students are either paying for, or being paid, the big bucks to be doing that research at the big universities, and professors' reputations depend on them.</p>
<p>One thing to consider is the breadth and depth of course offerings available at an LAC. Not specifically these LACs, just generally.</p>
<p>There are courses offered only every other year at an LAC that may be offered more frequently at a university. If you find that you want to study a particular field in depth, or that you fancy a particular sub-field within a broader department, the LAC can be more likely to run out of courses in your area of interest. Particularly advanced courses. And more generally the menu of courses and subjects you can pursue will be smaller.</p>
<p>You may indeed have undergrad research opportunities, but hopefully you like researching one of the things the few faculty members in your department are interested in, and not something else.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I went to a larger university and had to get a grad school recommendation from a Prof. who didn't even know who I was.</p>
<p>Before trying to identify the differences, one may want to check the classifications and the gross generalizations they present. </p>
<p>Simply stated, a student should evaluate each school on its own merit and set aside the label. For instance, could a student who is not interested in a LAC but interested in attending one of the best technical schools for sciences ELIMINATE Harvey Mudd. It is a LAC but it mostly compares to Caltech. So much for the Carnegie classifications.</p>
<p>There is no way aorund the fact that the implied differences are extremely blurry. On the one hand, there are majors at very large research universities that offer extremely small classes. On the other hand, not all LAC offer small and cozy classes. The issue of research opportunities is even more cloudy. Does anyone truly believe that a student would have more research OPPORTUNITIES at the University of Texas than at one of the Claremont schools? Actually, in many cases, you'll find a higher level of specialization at a small LAC than at a huge university. Search the posts of Mini about his (and her :) ) quest for the best fit for his extremely talented and advanced daughter. Despite having a large number of choices, she selected Smith BECAUSE of the opportunities to work with leading teachers. </p>
<p>We could debate this issue for ever ... and end up with the same conclusion. It is ALL about fit. It is undeniable that there are HUNDREDS of colleges and universities that deliver a world-class education. However, only a handful would REALLY fit the desires of a particular student. This does not mean that the schools are better, but there is no doubt that the school is better for THAT individual student. </p>
<p>In this thread, there is a post from a Berkeley student. I have no doubt that the student is truly happy about his choice. Me, I would absolutely miserable in that environment. In the end, we are both happy about our choices. </p>
<p>Lastly, whenever a discussion arises about LAC versus research universities, a lot of misconception show up. One of them is that a LAC is for students who need more nurturing and attention. While it is true that there are fewer chances to remain anonymous at a smaller school, it would an error to assume that students are not rewarded for their initiative and leadership. In the end, no matter where a student studies, it is up to HIM or HER to make the best of the experience. Actually, it may be much easier for a passive student to do well at a much larger school. </p>
<p>My conclusion is that one has to look well beyond the labels, and compare schools with greater attention and really check each department of interest before reaching unfortunate conclusions.</p>