<p>I have heard all kinds of explanation of what a liberal art college is, but I still do not understand the primary difference between a liberal art college and a regular college. Is liberal art college good for a science/math person? How do you know if as liberal art college is for you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thing you have to understand is, that until about World War Two, liberal arts colleges WERE regular colleges – there was very little difference in organization or mission between colleges. They were all primarily focused on the undergraduate school which, historically-speaking, was the earliest school founded on most Ivy League campuses and for the first hundred years of their existence was the ONLY school, often located in one building in the middle of a cow pasture (See, “Old Nassau” [Nassau</a> Hall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_Hall]Nassau”>Nassau Hall - Wikipedia)). </p>
<p>For all intents and purposes, the liberal arts college was the earliest form of post-secondary education in the United States.</p>
<p>Later, there were medical schools and law schools, but you didn’t need an MBA to go into business, you didn’t need a journalism degree to land a job with a newspaper and, in fact, you could live a pretty good life without any college education at all. All of that began to change after the war and accelerated in 1957, after the old Soviet Union launched the first man-made object ever to orbit the earth. This “Sputnik” shock, more than anything else, opened the flood gates to federal research money to bolster science education. </p>
<p>Colleges with graduate programs and laboratories already in place, quickly became more complex, greatly expanded, enterprises; the mission became less about educating wealthy, well-rounded, Renassance men (and to some extent, women) and turned to pumping out a highly specialized professoriate. Smaller colleges like Dartmouth, Amherst, and Wesleyan, which were already having trouble competing on the athletic playing field with Harvard, Yale and Princeton, went through an enormous period of self-reflection with most deciding to remain small and to, in essence, become feeder schools to the graduate programs produced on other campuses (Dartmouth and Wesleyan took slightly different approaches with the former casting its lot with the Ivy League and the latter eventually producing Ph.Ds of its own.)</p>
<p>People on CC still argue whether you can receive as good a science education at a traditional LAC as could be had at a research university. Some would say there are more research opportunities in cutting-edge areas at the bigger universities; others would argue that the mentoring process at smaller colleges makes up for the lack of sub-specialties. There certainly are no dearth of university professors with LAC baccalaureates.</p>
<p>Frankly, I would only consider applying to an LAC if you think you have the grades, the board scores and hooks that would get you into an Ivy League university; lots of people consider them a good additional set of cards to play when considering them; they’re nearly as old, carry many of the same traditions (ancient athletic rivalries and such) and in educated circles, carry the same cachet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on the liberal arts college. Due to small size, many have particular areas of emphasis, while maintaining other departments just for breadth purposes. For example:</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd: strong in math and science; humanities and social studies offered just for breadth
Sarah Lawrence: strong in visual art, performing art, and some humanities; math and science offered just for breadth or pre-meds</p>
<p>Some students who are very advanced in math (beyond the calculus BC level in high school) may prefer to attend a school with a strong graduate math program, because very advanced students may want to take graduate level math courses as undergraduates.</p>
<p>(Adding to johnwesley’s fine explanation …)
Long before Sputnik, there was an earlier shock from the “second industrial revolution” (the wave of railroad, telegraph, and other infrastructure-building after the Civil War) and westward expansion. This is when America’s first public land-grant colleges were established. It is also when a few new private schools (MIT, Hopkins, Chicago, Stanford) were founded, more or less on the model of German research universities, often by newly-rich industrial tycoons. One goal of these knowledge factories was to develop the scientific and technical knowledge necessary for industrial growth. They varied in relative emphasis on industrial arts applications versus pure theory. </p>
<p>Older colleges were rooted (in some cases since colonial times) in the need to educate leaders (ministers, lawyers, politicians, doctors) for traditional civic life. They had to adjust to competition from the new breed of university. Some embraced change and evolved into universities well before WWII. Others (today’s LACs) remained focused on undergraduate education. However, virtually all the older private schools (whether they added graduate programs or not) continued to emphasize the liberal arts and sciences. Some added engineering programs but very few added the undergraduate agriculture, business, or nursing programs offered at many state universities (disparaged by some liberal arts purists as “cow colleges” before the post-war era). </p>
<p>These distinctions continued even as new, post-war research funding increased the prestige of public universities. Today the undergraduate curriculum at most selective private schools, whether they offer graduate programs or not, is very similar. Virtually all of them offer majors in traditional arts and science fields (English, History, Math, Physics, Biology) but not in agriculture, business, or nursing. A few LACs, and many private universities, have engineering programs. More private universities also offer degrees in architecture or journalism. Big state universities typically offer undergraduate programs in all these areas (both liberal arts and pre-professional majors) as well as graduate and professional programs.</p>
<p>In addition to curriculum differences and similarities, you need to understand demographic differences. Selective private LACs and universities are expensive schools that attract many affluent students from all over the country. This is likely to affect a school’s atmosphere in ways you may or may not welcome.</p>
<p>The simple answer is that LACs are colleges that don’t have any graduate programs, and generally don’t offer the pre-professional majors (although there are exceptions), so the faculty are focused on undergraduate education, rather than research and there are no graduate students to be TAs.</p>
<p>Most top LACs have excellent math and science programs, although they won’t offer graduate coursework in those areas. Harvey Mudd and Sarah Lawrence are actually exceptions to the general LAC rule. The top LACs generally are strong in the sciences, the humanities and the social sciences, although how strong in a specific dept. will vary by school. Because the schools are smaller than universities (generally student bodies are under 2,500 students), there are fewer majors and, as I mentioned, only rarely pre-professional majors (engineering, accounting, nursing, architecture, journalism.) </p>
<p>There are lots of threads on the advantages and disadvantages of LACs vs. universities so I won’t repeat those arguments here. Just do the search.</p>
<p>Just for a little more depth: [Liberal</a> arts college - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_college]Liberal”>Liberal arts college - Wikipedia)</p>