What do people do after Liberal Arts Colleges?

<p>^^It’s partly due to LAC’s small size. It’s almost impossible for a big university to win any comparison based on a percentage or per capita analysis. Because even a small a handful of grads getting a PhD will have a huge effect on the calculated percentage </p>

<p>You see the same statistical effect every four years in the medal count at the Olympics. Large nations with strong sports programs have huge leads in the overall count, but the percentage count is always led by several tiny nations who won one or two medals. Are those tiny nations really stronger sports nations than the US, China, Russia, and Germany? No, they are just very small.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Yeah, because the research opportunities are so limited at their LACs. They have to move a university to keep progressing.</p>

<p>Check out the alumni list of LACs. LAC graduates do about everything. LACs are small but they have a formidable list of achievements.</p>

<p>Nobel laureates? Some have won more than the undergraduate alumni of institutions like LSE, Northwestern e.t.c World bank president- the recent one is a Swarthmore grad. Ambassadors- billions. Olympic runners? Check. Hedge fund starters and Wall street heavy weights? Check. Macarthur genius? Check </p>

<p>[List</a> of Williams College people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“List of Williams College people - Wikipedia”>List of Williams College people - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[List</a> of Amherst College people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amherst_College_people]List”>List of Amherst College people - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[List</a> of Swarthmore College people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swarthmore_College_people]List”>List of Swarthmore College people - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[List</a> of Middlebury College alumni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“List of Middlebury College alumni - Wikipedia”>List of Middlebury College alumni - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[List</a> of Haverford College people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Haverford_College_people]List”>List of Haverford College people - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[List</a> of Wellesley College people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wellesley_College_people]List”>List of Wellesley College people - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Steve Jobs? Check.</p>

<p>LACs tend to promote the phrase the idea of “education for education’s sake” rather than promoting their primary objectives in terms of graduate vocations which is a big reason why many graduates tend to go into academia.</p>

<p>I think that after reading through this thread, LACs provide better education and does not hinder students from going into any professional fields. However, I think that getting a MBA is almost required for LAC graduates because they cannot get that professional education. The best thing about schools like Wharton is that Whartonians seem to not need a MBA.</p>

<p>So how shall I weigh it? The great education and the freedom to simply explore the domain of human knowledge for four years…and most likely having to complete a graduate degree afterwards…OR A still fairly liberal arts education with a business focus…probably better job options and having no need for further schooling?</p>

<p>Maybe you mean that an MBA is necessary for LAC grads who want to go into a business discipline? It won’t do much good for those going into academia, research or a non-business professional field.</p>

<p>

If you’re implying that the “handful” of PhD grads were merely from luck, it would not explain the high percentage of LAC universities in these rankings. Wouldn’t the inverse be true? Couldn’t top LACs be unlucky? And, an even more important question, why aren’t small National universities as well represented?</p>

<p>If you’re implying that there is basically a glass ceiling to how many students can earn from each school (akin to a limit of how many medals can be won by each nation in the Olympics), then going to a LAC is still beneficial because, even if they aren’t necessarily better at educating, a student at a LAC will still be open to more opportunities than a National counterpart and that is what should matter. Debating which school is better outside of the success it contributes its students is futile. Either way, again, you will not see a similarly great representation of small National universities.</p>

<p>Here is the study that Reed based its information on. It is from the National Science Foundation so it is well regarded.
<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/nsf08311.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/nsf08311.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“One reason some LACs have such a good track record is that all seniors are required to do a master’s level research thesis; no motivation needed!”</p>

<p>Seniors that do a thesis certainly do have a leg up I think, whether they do it at an LAC or a research university. However it is not true that LACs as a class require all seniors to do one. Reed does, and I think Bryn Mawr and Barnard do as well. But Oberlin doesn’t. At Oberlin it’s offered to students who want to do honors, an option open to only about the top quarter or third of the class in D1s major. And many people who are offered it choose not to. It is not required at Swarthmore either, though I think a higher proportion of students there can and do choose to do one. This is not a feature unique to LAcs. At my alma mater university one can elect to do one. I believe at Princeton they require one.</p>

<p>As for the % thing, they do not measure the right denominator, which is the percentage of undergrads of comparable abilities who want a PhD. Universities offer the traditional liberal arts areas too, but often they offer more than that. Many also also offer other programs of study which more typically lead to immediate employment or tracks in the business world where a PhD is a less typical result. A number of them also are more diverse as to abilities of their class. </p>

<p>A student studying physics in a university’s college of liberal arts and sciences is not impeded in his quest for future studies by the fact that there are some other students, studying elsewhere someplace at that big university, in the undergraduate business college or whatever, who are going off to become accountants and will not be seeking phDs so much. Etc. Those people and their goals are irrelevant to our student for this purpose, but they are all lumped together in to the denominator in these % of undergrads measures.</p>

<p>Even considering comparable majors, there are some schools that are thought to offer particulalry good immediate employment options, so some subset of their student population is attracted there for that. There are other schools where the only employer coming to campus is the peace corps, of course those same students will not be equally attracted to those schools. </p>

<p>So the schools offering more options will have different types of students, not just one, and will have a smaller % go to PhDs. So ironically they are being penailzed by such measures because they offer more options there. But this does not mean that a bright student at such school who wants a PhD is at a disadvantage in pursuit of one there. It just means the other schools are more homogeneous, and offer less. </p>

<p>I, for one, don’t think that a Dartmouth student who seeks a PhD is at a disadvantage in getting one, over say a Washington College graduate. I think it’s more likely that, while a decent number of Dartmouth students come in with a Phd as a goal, many others are smelling Wall Street, etc. They have both types of students represented, not just one type. Again, they offer more options to their students, so they have more types of students more represented, not just one type, with one objective. It does not follow that either type is disadvantaged there, in their respective goals. But they have respective goals, not just one goal. So their %, measure over this one goal, will be smaller. Yet that says nothing about what they offer someone there who wants a Phd ultimately.</p>

<p>MBAs crown successful first few years of post-graduate work experience. Keep that in mind. The majority of Whartonites will pursue MBAs, because, at a certain point, career advancement will demand one. That is, regardless of whether one attends a LAC or a Uni, one will have to pursue an MBA at a certain point in one’s career.</p>

<p>One does not need a professional education in business in order to work on Wall Street–as evidenced by the hoards of humanities/social sciences majors from Harvard, whose number dwarfs that of NYU Stern and matches (perhaps) that of UPenn Wharton.</p>

<p>If you presume yourself competitive for Amherst, but lack the self-confidence, for reasons unknown, to presume yourself competitive for Harvard/Yale/Princeton, then apply Early Decision to Dartmouth.</p>

<p>You can continue to pretend that you care about getting a good education while actually getting a good education, and you can strategically position yourself for a career on Wall Street.</p>

<p>Problem solved.</p>

<p>Thank you sentimentGX4 for the NSF link. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So the issue of science and engineering PhD production is not LAC vs. research u, but rather private versus public.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>No, I’m not saying it’s merely luck. Luck has very little to do with it since, like the Olympic medals, PhDs are earned by achievement, not won in a lottery. What I’m saying that percentage or per capita analyses, by their nature, favor small schools over large schools, just as total output favors large schools over small schools.</p>

<p>Consider an example of two families - the Smiths and the Johnsons. The Smiths have two kids and Johnsons have 12. Both families aspire for their kids to go to say Amherst. For the Smiths one of their kids ends up going to Amherst and the other does not. For the Johnsons three of their kids go to Amherst and the other nine do not. By considering only percentage you’d say Wow, the Smiths are twice as good as the Johnsons at getting kids into Amherst - 50% vs 25%. And that’s perfectly true but it’s a deceptive statistic. It doesn’t take into account that, even though both represent a 50% success rate, with all the variables and potential detours encountered along the way, not to mention the wants and opinions of the kids themselves, getting six kids into Amherst may be much more challenging and much less feasible for a family than getting one in.</p>

<p>So what a percentage tempts you to conclude is that the Smiths really have Amherst admissions figured out a lot better than than the Johnsons do or that they do a much better job of preparing their children for Amherst. But underlying that, what those percentage numbers mostly indicate is that the Smith family is a lot smaller than the Johnson family - something we already knew.</p>

<p>Conversely, if you want to make the big schools come out on top, rank them by total output. In the case of the Smiths and the Johnsons, the Johnsons suddenly have a three-fold advantage. So the bottom line is that if percentage (or total output) numbers are useful for comparing a large school with other large schools or a small school with other small schools but far less useful in comparing large vs. small. </p>

<p>Add on top of that a selection bias of who is likely to choose a university vs LAC in the first place (LACs traditionally do not offer career-minded majors such as Nursing, Accounting, Education, Agriculture, etc. where going on for a PhD is very rare) and it really becomes an apples vs. oranges comparison. The percentage PhD output comparison is not the triumph that the LAC-boosters would like it to be.</p>

<p>Appreciate the responses, everyone! But why not take the university vs lac debate over to the other thread? It’s hard for me to comb through all the information trying to find a hint of business-related advantages. :P</p>

<p>Your concerns had been addressed long ago, and I myself offered you a direct, thorough, and incontestable response.</p>

<p>What else is there to say?</p>

<p>Think of it more in terms of the Smith and Johnson kids who want to study with like-minded peers (those interested in academia, research, advanced degrees) being able to find the schools with the highest percentage of such students. This is the self-selecting side of the stats, the self-fulfilling prophecy, where the future-PhD stats can be useful.</p>

<p>Also remember that LACs aren’t the only schools on the lists!</p>

<p>Anything and everything!</p>

<p>As for business, most of my friends and I worked in business then went to grad school…</p>

<p>o Haverford (history) then investment bank then Harvard MBA
o Haverford (political science) then Fortune 100 co. job then Harvard Law
o Haverford (english) then consulting firm then Harvard MBA
o Wellesley (biology) then Fortune 100 co. job then Yale MBA</p>

<p>Many LACs grads go directly into business with their English, Political Science, History, Psychology, Anthropology, Physics, etc. degrees.</p>

<p>"Think of it more in terms of the Smith and Johnson kids who want to study with like-minded peers (those interested in academia, research, advanced degrees) being able to find the schools with the highest percentage of such students. "</p>

<p>The thing is, there are actually MORE of such peers at some of the universities that may have lower percentages measured across their entire undergraduate population, since they have many students studying in programs other than Arts & Sciences, etc. And in the case I’m most familiar with they can easily find them, via self-segregation once they get to campus; more of their 'type" will be in the programs they select, or attending their own college there, the courses they choose. Your approach will tend to casue them to exclude or down-rate places that might actually be better for them, with a more robust cohort of like-minded individuals, and many more future PhDs running around.</p>

<p>The big U is not some homogeneous place where everybody there is doing the same thing. It breaks down into smaller groups. There is not one monlithic culture there. There are multiple subcultures.</p>

<p>One is not impeded in a quest to eventually get a physics phd simply because someone else, someplace else at that university, is studying secondary educaton in a separate college there and is going to be a teacher. There will be plenty of like-minded individuals in your upper level physics courses, research groups, etc. Perhaps more of them than at some small places with higher nominal %s (and, not coincidentally, few other colleges or majors besides the traditional liberal arts subjects).</p>

<p>Also you are not necessarily impeded simply because some portion of your fellow majors want to go on to law school, or investment banking instead of going on for a phd. There may still be plenty of fellow travelers there for you to keep company with.</p>

<p>I agree, my approach perhaps works only for those starting the quest who want to identify schools with like-minded peers, schools known for producing the highest percentages of future PhDs. It is clearly possible to earn a PhD after attending any good undergrad school.</p>

<p>Although liberal arts students rarely think of themselves as well-prepared for careers in business, in actuality they have precisely the experience and knowledge needed for these positions. Creativity, adaptability, and analytical thinking are exactly what businesses need to succeed. Visit [Nothing</a> prepares you for business like the Liberal Arts!](<a href=“http://www.LiberalArtsAdvantage.com%5DNothing”>http://www.LiberalArtsAdvantage.com) to learn more about how to apply a liberal arts education to future careers in business and leadership.</p>

<p>"It is clearly possible to earn a PhD after attending any good undergrad school. "</p>

<p>It is clearly possible to earn a Phd after attending any of the schools on this list, which is where most PhDs actually come from (undergrad schools of PhD and Doctoral Degree earners 1994 to 2003, I believe) :</p>

<p>1 University of California-Berkeley 4,470
2 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 3,134
3 Cornell University 3,033
4 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2,931
5 University of Wisconsin-Madison 2,667
6 University of Texas at Austin 2,613
7 Harvard University 2,545
8 Pennsylvania State U, Main Campus 2,519
9 University of California-Los Angeles 2,454
10 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2,078
11 Brigham Young University, Main Campus 2,049
12 University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 1,970
13 Michigan State University 1,917
14 Stanford University 1,894
15 Yale University 1,877
16 Ohio State University, Main Campus 1,876
17 University of Florida 1,863
18 University of California-Davis 1,829
19 Texas A&M University Main Campus 1,770
20 University of Pennsylvania 1,688
21 Purdue University, Main Campus 1,654
22 University of California-San Diego 1,624
23 Rutgers the State Univ of NJ New Brunswick 1,607
24 University of Maryland at College Park 1,592
25 Princeton University 1,585
26 University of Washington - Seattle 1,580
27 Indiana University at Bloomington 1,575
28 University of Virginia, Main Campus 1,567
29 Brown University 1,554
30 University of Colorado at Boulder 1,510
31 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1,453
32 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ 1,386
33 University of Arizona 1,356
34 Duke University 1,313
35 Northwestern Univ 1,273
36 University of Massachusetts at Amherst 1,265
37 University of Chicago 1,263
38 University of California-Santa Barbara 1,251
39 University of California-Santa Cruz 1,209
40 SUNY at Buffalo 1,169
41 Iowa State University 1,164
42 Boston University 1,144
43 University of Iowa 1,138
44 Florida State University 1,110
45 Oberlin College 1,107
46 Columbia University in the City of New York 1,101
47 University of Missouri, Columbia 1,086
48 University of California-Irvine 1,077
49 University of PR Rio Piedras Campus 1,034
50 University of Georgia 1,011
51 College of William and Mary 1,005
52 Arizona State University Main 985
53 University of Rochester 983
54 University of Notre Dame 983
55 University of Nebraska at Lincoln 978
56 University of Kansas, Main Campus 952
57 University of Tennessee at Knoxville 951
58 North Carolina State University at Raleigh 929
59 University of Delaware 921
60 Miami University, All Campuses 904
61 Washington University 897
62 University of Pittsburgh Main Campus 881
63 Colorado State University 847
64 Louisiana State Univ & Agric & Mechanical 844
65 Rice University 842
66 New York University 842
67 University of Utah 834
68 Dartmouth College 817
69 San Diego State University 814
70 Johns Hopkins University 805
71 University of South Florida 794
72 SUNY at Binghamton 793
73 Auburn University, Main Campus 786
74 Wesleyan University 780
75 SUNY at Albany 775
76 Swarthmore College 770
77 Carleton College 766
78 University of Connecticut 764
79 Georgia Institute of Technology, Main Campus 757
80 Baylor University 756
81 Southern Illinois University-Carbondale 752
82 SUNY at Stony Brook, All Campuses 751
83 California Institute of Technology 738
84 Carnegie Mellon University 736
85 University of Oklahoma, Norman Campus 718
86 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 712
87 Tufts University 702
88 Georgetown University 699
89 Oklahoma State University, All Campuses 692
90 University of Southern California 692
91 University of Kentucky 690
92 University of Cincinnati, All Campuses 687
93 University of Oregon 683
94 University of South Carolina at Columbia 680
95 Texas Tech University 678
96 University of New Mexico, All Campuses 674
97 Ohio University, All Campuses 667
98 Temple University 664
99 University of Houston 647
100 Williams College 644</p>