<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not exactly my argument. However, it is a fact that LACs as a class do tend to have relatively high PhD production rates. As do the universities I’d call “LAC-like” (CalTech, Chicago, Rice, some of the Ivies).</p>
<p>I look to the PhD rate as one of several imperfect indicators for a certain kind of undergraduate culture. It is not necessarily an end in itself.</p>
<p>^ Using zapfino’s link <a href=“http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bach2010.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bach2010.pdf</a> (figure 2) you see that fewer physics students from bachelor’s granting schools (LACs) go on to grad school than those from research universities (26% vs. 41%).</p>
<p>Informative,</p>
<p>If you’re going by USNWR, you will leave out schools like Reed, Oberlin, Vassar, and Grinnell whose graduates IME are well-respected, especially in the hallowed halls of the most elite universities…including Harvard if my own experiences going there on some conferences and my college classmates’ experiences as grad students there…including some in STEM fields are any indication. </p>
<p>If nothing else…leaving out Reed is a travesty IMHO considering its academic rigor and workload is such that only schools like UChicago, Swarthmore, Cornell, CMU, and MIT could compare if what I’ve heard from Reedies and classmates from those other schools are anything to go on. </p>
<p>Moreover, I knew many college classmates who turned down admission to the top 10 LACs and Ivies including Yale, Brown, Williams, Amherst, and Davidson due to personal fit, comparative strengths of academic programs, and/or the prevailing campus culture.</p>
<p>^ Reed is a great school and I am sure your education there has served you well.</p>
<p>
In contrast to my own field, limited to a half dozen or so universities, physics is a generic major offered at virtually every reputable LAC and university. It seems that one need not attend specific research universities in order to get into top graduate programs in that discipline. The most recent commencement data for Caltech, for example, notes that some of the graduating students in physics did their undergraduate work at Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Dickinson, Lawrence, Reed, and Wheaton. The question therefore becomes a matter of raw numbers (can Haverford’s 9 physics majors compare with Berkeley’s 66?) and whether the students are inclined to apply to graduate school. </p>
<p>The Goldwater scholarship provides additional data for physics. LACs represented this year include Amherst, Barnard, Franklin & Marshall, Juniata, Oberlin, St. Olaf, Union, Vassar, and Wellesley (1 each). The only universities to produce more Goldwater scholars in physics were Arizona, Chicago, Indiana, Ohio State, Rice, and WUStL (2 each), and LAC students made up 14% of Goldwater scholars in physics. Interestingly, when one factors in the relative number of schools (USNWR is 24% LACs, 76% master’s/PhD universities) and size (most universities are somewhere between 5 and 17 times as large), LACs seem to be overrepresented in the Goldwater. </p>
<p>It should be emphasized, when tallying faculty, that LACs are a uniquely American institution. Many research universities draw heavily from overseas, however; 17 of Stanford’s 38 physics faculty members did their undergraduate work abroad.</p>
<p>You said it yourself, “whether the students are inclined to apply to graduate school.”</p>
<p>That is the exact argument that I use when LAC-supporters mention PhD production. I dont think Uni students are as inclined to apply to graduate school, generally. Maybe it’s because lower incomes are represented in Unis (since most of them are cheaper than LACs) and they cant afford to get PhDs. Maybe it’s because the business or engineering or prelaw/premed students dont need PhDs. Idk. But graduate school and PhD rates mean nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One easy refutation of your claim above: NYU. </p>
<p>As a native NYC resident, it has long been known by most of us locals as a school for mostly rich kids because of their miserly FA policies. </p>
<p>It was one big reason why I and several other classmates from working-class/lower-middle class origins turned down admission there. Most classmates who attended were well-off kids who couldn’t get into an elite university, LAC, or even some top SUNYs(In the early-mid 90’s…it was actually harder to gain admission to Binghamton than NYU/CAS). </p>
<p>Also, back in the '90s, Columbia used to be just as bad. Some of my high school classmates who were admitted to both schools used to joke that Columbia must share the same FA office as NYU. Fortunately, Columbia has substantially improved its FA policies so this doesn’t seem to be the case for the last several years. </p>
<p>Also, your argument that LACs are more expensive than unis is certainly contrary to my experience. With a near-full ride scholarship, going to my LAC was actually a better deal than attending the state/city flagships…especially considering the prestige/academic quality gap and the fact none of them had a strong program for what I wanted to study at the time…if they had it at all. </p>
<p>Ended up graduating debt free while most high school classmates who attended NYU are either still paying off their undergrad debt or just finished within the last two years. The only exceptions were those whose families had no problems paying sticker out of their own pockets.</p>
<p>Well you’re not like most people (merit maybe?)</p>
<p>For most people, a public university (most Uni people go to public schools) is more economical than a private LAC.</p>
<p>As a coutnerexample, my older brother’s decision was down to Vassar and William and Mary. WM was 30k cheaper per year…</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Merit? First, I was far from a tippy-top candidate for their applicant pool…though they were aware of my urban public magnet high school’s reputation. After a slow first semester, however, I did maintain respectable grades well above the minimum 3.25 cum GPA. </p>
<p>Not everyone is fortunate enough to live in a state with two public institutions whose academic reputations rival that of elite private universities/LACs…including the Ivies. </p>
<p>While the SUNY/CUNY flagships are decent, they have been considered pale substitutes for topflight elite institutions…even if honors colleges are taken into account. Several high school classmates…including many who were C/-B level students who initially went off to the SUNY/CUNY flagships and joined honors programs felt so underchallenged academically and frustrated at those institutions’ refusal to allow them to take more advanced courses. </p>
<p>This prompted them to transfer up to elite universities like Columbia and Brown or elite LACs like Reed where they continued to excel academically to graduation.</p>
<p>That’s true, cobrat. But the most populous states (except for NY, which I guess prefers quantity over quality) have pretty solid public Us.
UT-A, UCB/LA/SB/SD/etc, UW, UW-Madison, UM, UIUC, etc
I mean, most state flagships arent up with Reed and Amherst. But generally the best university in your state is public. I mean, we could go through the list, but other than NH, NY, MA, RI, CT, PA, NJ, CA, and a few more, the best uni is public. Usually the best school (in all) is the uni as well.
So public schools nationwide are still very relevant.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Never said public universities weren’t relevant. </p>
<p>However, different students may or may not benefit from some traits of a stereotypical public university such as larger less responsive bureaucracies, class sizes, greater ease of anonymity, greater numbers of ECs/sports/activities, lower flexibility in dealing with issues such as unavailable/inadequate critical core/major courses, hit or miss advising, wider variability in academic ability among classmates and the corresponding tendency of most Profs to teach to the slowest students, wider variability in academic seriousness/intellectualism among the student body, etc. </p>
<p>To be fair, these are also traits possessed by many large private universities…including NYU from the countless rants I’ve heard on this from HS classmates who went there. </p>
<p>For those who feel the above are detriments/don’t care about the positives of a larger environment, they may be better served by an LAC. </p>
<p>Found this to be the case with several transfer students who came from larger public or private universities and left because of frustrations of the abovementioned traits. This included one particularly memorable classmate who transferred from UCB because he was fed up with the “increasing pre-professionalism, anti-intellectualism, and political conservatism of the student body.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, those who don’t feel those traits are an issue or better, thrive on them would be better off at a larger public/private university. </p>
<p>BTW: According to several classmates who attended W&M, it has a feel much more like an LAC than a large public/private university. Another point where you and your brother are fortunate.</p>
<p>Also, I know a few Rice alums who may have issues with your implications that UT-A is “better”. :D</p>
<p>I didn’t imply that UT-A is better. Although it is for many majors, including business and generally humanities majors.
But you are right, WM is very LAC-esque. Which begs the question, what is the difference between an LAC and a university with less than 4000 students? Dartmouth/Princeton are very small universities. Do they have “larger less responsive bureaucracies, class sizes, greater ease of anonymity, greater numbers of ECs/sports/activities, lower flexibility in dealing with issues such as unavailable/inadequate critical core/major courses, hit or miss advising, wider variability in academic ability among classmates and the corresponding tendency of most Profs to teach to the slowest students, wider variability in academic seriousness/intellectualism among the student body, etc.”
I doubt it. So is this an argument between LAC and University, or Big vs small?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Dartmouth for all intents and purposes…is an effective LAC with a few small grad programs.
Princeton has institutionally prioritized their undergrads so much it also functions as an effectively as an LAC despite having many more grad programs.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, Columbia College is the smallest undergraduate college in the Ivy League at 3000 students. If you add the undergrads at Fu, that adds around another 5-600 which will approach the size of the next smallest Ivy undergrad college. Yet from my high school classmates’ experience at Columbia in both divisions and from my own visits, it had the feel of the large institution with most of its problems…especially the unresponsive inflexible bureaucracy. </p>
<p>As for whether it is big vs small…I may be willing to consider that if you can name me one LAC that has the size and feel of Columbia U, one of the SUNY flagships, or better yet…NYU.</p>
<p>Give me 1 LAC with 7,000-10,000+ undergrads, and I guarantee it faces the same issues that Unis face.
And Columbia College probably feels big because there are like 15k grads and the faculty doesnt really care about the undergrads.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>From scanning the top 50 LACs, it seems the largest LACs by undergrad enrollment are the US military academies at around 4500+. If we leave them out, the largest ones are around 2-3,000. </p>
<p>7,000-10,000 would seem to be way too big for it to be considered an LAC in the popular way it has been used IME. That’s more the size of a small to medium sized university. Haven’t seen any LACs in the top 50 that exceed 3-4000 undergrads. </p>
<p>I’d be very interested to see if there is an LAC with 7,000-10,000 undergrads.</p>
<p>It’s not all about size. </p>
<p>There are small universities like Caltech and Rice. These are still different from LACs of comparable size in that they have graduate and professional programs. This disparity is not insignificant. That could be both a good thing and a bad thing, for reasons likely already discussed. One thing I like about having grad students around is it convinced me that I should never become one myself.</p>
<p>The National Science Foundation has weighed in on the issue of PhD production in science and engineering: <a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/nsf08311.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/nsf08311.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you, as a high school junior or perhaps senior, “know” this because … ? Or is this the classic “I heard it somewhere, so I’ll just repeat it”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>stateuniversity.com compiles lists of the best schools in each state. We could nit-pick but I don’t think most of their choices are too terribly controversial. Below are their picks for the best schools in states not listed in the above quote (and excluding some of the low-population Western states). An asterix (*) marks the 5 public universities, 2 of which are military academies (and both of which have private schools in close contention). Note the number of LACs.</p>
<p>Colorado: <em>US Air Force Academy (private Colorado College was 1st last year)
Florida: *University of Florida (private University of Miami was 1st last year)
Illinois: Northwestern
Indiana: Notre Dame
Iowa: Grinnell
KY: Centre College
Louisiana: Tulane
ME: Bowdoin
Maryland: *US Naval Academy (private Johns Hopkins was 1st last year)
Minnesota: Carleton
MO: WUSTL
NC: Duke
Ohio: Oberlin
Oregon: Reed
SC: Furman
TN: Vanderbilt
Texas: Rice
VA: W&L
VT: Middlebury
WA: Whitman
West Virginia: *West Virginia University
WI: Beloit (</em>public Wisconsin-Madison was 1st last year)</p>
<p>bdw, is Iowa (grinnell) more rural or Ohio (oberlin)?</p>