<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>