<p>I was sure LACs were for me. Then I visited one of the top rated LACs in the country. Pretty campus, terrifically nice students, attentive faculty...but then I sat in on three classes-one art history, one social science and one humanities-and the level of discussion was so disappointing. Lots of summarizing, not much analysis or interpretation. No one challenging poorly supported statements. I was dismayed that the professors let students get away with this-and its supposed to be one of the most intellectually demanding LACs in the country. </p>
<p>Admittedly, I go to a very academically intense school, so maybe my expectations are just unrealistic. Maybe there were a lot of first years who were still getting used to 'seminar-style' learning. Maybe the fact that these were morning classes (one started at 8:30) means people weren't 'on' yet. They weren't intro classes though and I know for certain that at least one had a significant number of juniors.</p>
<p>If you want a good concentration of sharp people that will be active and rigorous class participants, you would be better off aiming for HYP, not even S or M. Though, there exists a trade-off--unlimited class sizes, an enormous student body size, a prevalence of T.A.s, etc.</p>
<p>No matter how insightful you are, your voice and face-time are going to be stifled in a 400 person seminar.</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure what kwu is arguing. The critical mass of "sharp people" at HYP is identical to that at AWM (the top three LACs). You will indeed be stifled in a 400-person seminar--if you don't want that, don't go to a university, such as HYP.</p>
<p>I think the seminars that the OP visited suffered from poor direction by the professor, rather than class size. And I do think that the OP should try other LACs--no matter how rigorous the reputation, a sample size of one is unfair to the whole.</p>
<p>It's often more important for the class to move ahead than to spend 40 discussing the details of a tangent comment, especially if there's a certain amount of material that has to be covered.</p>
<p>I'd rather not say which one: I feel guilty saying this when the students and faculty were so exceptionally nice to me. It was one of those reputed to be particularly intellectually intense.</p>
<p>I think I should probably try again. This time, maybe I'll check out the profs ratings before choosing the class rather than choosing purely on the basis of topics that interest me. I'll also sit in on some math and science classes-I'd assumed that these would have to be rigorous-you can't blather about math-but now I'm not sure. I'm also going to sit in on classes at Yale (the only Ivy that allows it, right?) for purposes of comparison. </p>
<p>b@r!um, I appreciate the need to avoid getting bogged down in a pointless debate, but surely professors, when they put out a question for discussion, should also set standards for participation. </p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm going to assume this was a fluke.</p>
<p>Penn stated they were perfectly fine with me sitting in on classes. I was disappointed by the discussion in my local liberal arts school as well (Though not that reputed. Although it is "Best of the West-Liberal Arts" according to PR.</p>
<p>An unintended byproduct of posting a negative critical thread which refuses to identify the LAC is that it denigrates many outstanding schools. I strongly suspect that the OP was NOT referring to Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Carleton, Haverford, Smith, Wellesley, Pomona, CMC or Wesleyan and other highly interactive intellectual schools. (Possibly it was a mid-western LAC). The OP's concern is one reason why so many top students fight to get into the top 20 or so National Universities & the top 13 LACs.</p>
<p>Reed? I think it could also be Swarthmore. Both colleges have some kind of "intellectual" reputation to them, as if going to college was itself not that intellectual.</p>
<p>You can lead a horse to water but.... (Certainly NOT Reed, Swarthmore or Oberlin.) Think rural, isolated, hungover, cornfields...(And yes, I do realize the liklihood of redundancy when using rural, isolated & hungover in the same phrase--although I did leave out--unintentionally--the adjective "small".) Okay, I see why the above two posts are starting a "red herring" chase. Sorry as I in no way mean to suggest that the OP's experience at Grinnell was the norm. And, it is possible that it was one other top 35 LAC located in the mid-west.</p>
<p>Skywriter, there is nothing wrong with stating the LAC. It would be helpful to know so that posters who are familiar with that school can maybe explain why you weren't satisfied with it.</p>
<p>Quit trying to be polite. Why? Because this is a forum and you are not going to hurt anyones feelings. Another reason: This is a site that is supposed to speak the truth about college, not a website that proliferates highly generalized statements (e.g. its one of those schools reputed as intellectually demanding) One subjective opinion (yours) on one particular day, in three particular classes will not influence anyone to the extent that you are making it out to. Your reason for not saying which college you visited is not only illogical and absurd, but it completely defeats the point of this site. I simply speak for the benefit of all and at present this thread is only propagating unnecessary rumor and is effectively useless to everyone but you. Sorry if that seemed harsh...</p>
<p>I would say this definitely isn't true at Mount Holyoke. Our classes are very small and most are taught seminar-style, so there's a lot of pressure on people to be at the top of their game. If you aren't prepared to really work, people know it. So, without knowing the college, I would guess that you just sat in on weird classes.</p>
<p>Also, I will say that morning classes can be a lot more difficult, especially Monday mornings. So your suspicion about that possibly being a factor might be totally on.</p>
<p>Depends a lot on the professor and the course. I sat in on some HPY classes over the years that were truly canned spam. Just recently listened to a high school religion class lecture that was phenomenally good. Has nothing to do with the school/curriculum as a whole. The teacher was one of a dozen religion teachers there and many, many other teachers that could not hold a candle to that performance. You can get lucky with a good lecture, great teacher or it can go the other way.</p>
<p>I think another factor that needs to be considered is that it's still very early in the semester. I know that in my school, and in the dual enrollment classes I took, we were a more reserved in terms of expressing our opinions at the start of the semester because we didn't know the professor and weren't terribly familiar with the material.</p>