<p>I know that both schools are equally great, but I can't really decide which to go. </p>
<ul>
<li>Ignore the tuition and location but weight on competitiveness and prestige </li>
<li>I would like to study biology, go to the BEST grad program related to bio and get PhD.</li>
<li>I would like to do research! Research is my main focus during undergrad period.</li>
</ul>
<p>Could you give me any advice? I will be happy if you could tell me the difference between research unis and LACs in research opportunity and quality of research conducted by undergrads.</p>
<p>UCLA and UMich will generally be better than LACs in terms of both prestige and research. And you could easily get into a top PHD program from either of them (although LACs have a higher percentage of students who go on to get PHDs.)</p>
<p>If you’re deciding between UCLA and UMich, pick on factors based on fit.</p>
<p>Neither better nor worse, LACS and unis have their good and bad. </p>
<p>By the numbers, Carleton and Grinnell are impressive, ranking 4th and 5th respectively in PhD productivity in the Life Sciences. Michigan and UCLA are no where to be found on this list. </p>
<p>LACs excel in offering 1:1 research opportunities with professors without doctoral students getting the way. Lots more opportunities for first authorships.
Unis offer the opportunity to work with professors better known for research in their field and with equipment that is cutting edge. </p>
<p>What do grad schools care about? More than anything, they want as much confirmation as possible that you can handle yourself in a lab environment. The training at LACs generally takes you to a greater level of personal responsibility in this regard. Grad schools love this preparation and vetting. </p>
<p>Where would you be best served to forward your goals? In my opinion, at whichever of these 4 schools fits you best and would allow you to be happiest and thrive. Go where you see yourself most at home and can graduate with the lowest possible debt. No one of these schools will provide some magic ticket to success.</p>
<p>In fact, since I’m an int’l student, any of these schools requires equal amount of tuition. So, any of them shows no financial attraction over others. Reed excels at its PhD production, and I like the hard working style of its students. But I can’t get how PhD production is connected with the school’s performance in sending its students to great grad programs. I know what kind of schools to which Reed sends its graduates, but I have no way to compare its performance with that of others. Probably, the difference should be, as you implied, negligible, and any of these schools should offer the same amount of chance. From what you talked about LACS’ opportunity of first authorship and availability of professor in research, my preference gradually moved over to LACS. Especially, Grinnell has open curriculum, which means I can choose whatever class I want without being annoyed by graduation requirements. Although I have not applied to these schools yet, I will definitely apply to schools with open curriculum. Fortunately, LACS have such nice qualities you stated and some other qualities which I recently learned, including open curriculum (like that of Grinnell and Hamilton,) so I will rather pick LACS over research unis. But it doesn’t mean that I will never apply to any research unis. Thanks so much.</p>
<p>If research in bio is your focus and the way you are picking your schools, I would carefully examine the research interests of the bio faculty at both Grinnell and Carleton to make sure there are least two profs whose interests match your own. These are small schools with small faculties - some of whom will be on sabbatical or on leave. If you arrive hoping to do research on, say, prairie eco-systems, then you want to know that the one or two profs with that focus are going to be around. If you are interested in genetics, is there anyone on the faculty doing research in that area? If it’s marine bio, does anyone do that?</p>
<p>I’m not trying to discourage you from applying to Grinnell or Carleton. Far from it - S was a biochem major at Grinnell and loved his experience there, including the many close relationships he developed with the faculty. They also have a ton of money for student research. But if you are entirely driven by your research agenda, you need to find a school that will support your specific agenda. UMich and UCLA will have massive bio depts doing research in a much wider range of areas - more breadth and depth. And graduate level courses in those areas should you exhaust the undergrad offerings in that area.</p>
<p>As others have mentioned, it is much easier to fit in at UMich and UCLA if you want to do research. Those two schools also have more prestige, although grad programs are privy to the fact that the undergrad programs at top LACs are just as good.</p>
<p>Be aware that you can do research during the summer too. So if you go to carleton/grinnelll you can research at a big public university. Seen this happen before and you would be doing real research. I don’t consider part-time research during the school year real research.</p>
<p>“PhD production” refers to the number of college alumni who earn PhDs (not to the number admitted to PhD programs). It can be expressed as an absolute number or as a percentage rate. The percentage rate can be the result of adjusting for college size or for program size. LACs have some of the best PhD production rates in many fields, especially after adjusting for college size. In earth sciences, Carleton College has the highest PhD production even in absolute numbers (32 alumni PhDs in 2007-11 compared to 27 for Berkeley and 18 for Michigan).</p>
<p>In applying to PhD programs, an important factor will be your research interests and how they align with those of prospective mentors at the target school. However, your eventual, specific research interests don’t necessarily have to be covered deeply by professors at your college. More important, in my opinion, is that you develop a good foundation in the ideas and methods familiar to most researchers in your field. On that foundation, you can build creative approaches to new problems. Your ultimate goal in a PhD program is to make an original contribution to knowledge. To prepare you for that, strong undergraduate programs foster a high level of student-faculty engagement in faculty-mentored discussion, experiments, and writing assignments. You can get that at some research universities, especially in your advanced courses. Good LACs excel at that from year 1.</p>
<p>One of my sons is now at a famous research university after graduating from a small LAC. Nobody on his college faculty taught courses in his current specialty. Having experienced both kinds of schools, he says if he had it to do over, he would not choose a prestigious research university over a LAC. I know his experience and opinion aren’t universally shared, but I do think the importance of early specialization in college courses is easily over-emphasized.</p>
<p>Most LACs can’t hold their weight to research universities when talking about research opportunities because that’s not their purpose. This is hardly a controversial point. Even if LACs have faculty who have the same interests that a given student has, that doesn’t mean they’ll have the facilities, or perhaps even the research money for the undergraduates.</p>
<p>Because LACs don’t produce much research, and graduate such small class sizes, they tend to be significantly less prestigious than research universities which have world-leading researchers, tons of research money, and world-class facilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where do Carleton and Grinnell rank on this list? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re comparing apples to oranges. Not only that, but just getting ‘a PHD’ doesn’t really tell us much without noting the quality of these programs that these students are getting into. Are they getting into top-ten programs? top fifty? etc.</p>
<p>rhg3rd, you confuse PhD productivity with academic quality. LACs have a higher percentage of students seeking doctoral degrees because a higher percentage of such students are attracted to LACs in the first place. Schools like Cornell, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern and the University of Pennsylvania (to name a few) do not attract as many PhD types as Carleton, Harvey Mudd, Reed etc… I do not think it makes a difference whether one attends a LAC or a research university if one’s aim is to earn a PhD after college, but I do think the options available to undergrads at major research universities, from the breadth and depth of classes, facilities, faculties and research, are greater than those available at LACs.</p>
<p>tk21769 is spot on - “strong undergraduate programs foster a high level of student-faculty engagement in faculty-mentored discussion, experiments, and writing assignments. You can get that at some research universities, especially in your advanced courses. Good LACs excel at that from year 1.”</p>
<p>In applying to graduate programs, a prospective adviser has little interest in the particulars of your undergraduate research. He/she does have significant interest in how well you’ve been mentored, how much independence you’ve achieved in lab work, writing and statistical analysis, and to what degree you’ve impressed those professors with whom you’ve completed research. Graduates of top LACs fare exceptionally well in applications to top university programs.</p>