<p>Abhi:</p>
<p>Actually, Das went to Harvard, not an LAC. That doesn't invalidate his comments about the benefits of a liberal arts education in general, however.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, if you already had a very well-rounded education in high school, you may be yearning to escape and get focused on your chosen field, so I can understand the perspective of people like aw5k and nauru.</p>
<p>Harvard has Liberal arts curriculum for all undergraduates. I didn't said that he went to a LAC. </p>
<p>Sorry, but i don't think that you can get well rounded education in High-School.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard has Liberal arts curriculum for all undergraduates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know - I specifically said before that I prefer American universities because they have a liberal arts curriculum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't said that he went to a LAC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You said he had a LAC education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, but i don't think that you can get well rounded education in High-School.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you basing this on? I've read a bit about the German education system, and it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Oxbridge have so little funding that they do actually lose the top students to US colleges and universities
[/quote]
Nah, I must disagree. I know lots of people from EU and UK who are top and will choose Oxbridge over any US uni anytime. Why? Well, because of the education system and because of the money, too. Oxbridge is far cheaper than US for UK and EU guys.
[quote]
[/quote]
Depends heavily on where those parents live. In the states - well yes, why go abroad? In Europe: 99% would not go to the state, believe me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't know about the situation in Europe, but top LACs definitely have a growing reputation in Asia
[/quote]
Nobody has ever heard of them.</p>
<p>Anyway, I realize that LACs are good. Although they still have to catch up very, very, very much reputation-wise.</p>
<p>Well, the problem with a well-rounded high school education is that the course offerings at most high schools are very limited. At my school for example you cannot take computer science, psychology or language courses except for English, French and Latin.
You might spend 4 periods talking about Budism or astrophysics, but that's it. At the end of 13 years of school in Germany you have heard about a lot of things but studied nothing in-depth... Everything stays on a superficial level. I don't consider that a well-rounded education.</p>
<p>My driver doesn't knows about Williams, he knows about MIT. But thankfully academicians, reputed cos and intellectuals know and respect LAC education.</p>
<p>I guess one big problem I have with the LACs is that I consider it to be a continuation of high school. It is the same principle: study many subjects, none of them in <em>real</em> depth (and I mean <em>real</em>). I have had 13 years of this, and I just want to focus now. I realize that most people don't know yet what to study, so liberal arts is probably a good choice for them, though.</p>
<p>aw5k,
LACs don't force you to study a variety of subject; they just give you the option. There are enough LACs without any distribution requirements except that one has to take 50% of one's classes outside one's major, but you can make those 50% a second major if you like to: computer science and math, history and government, or Japanese and international relations. What is so bad about that system?</p>
<p>Yeah, and Wesleyan has no distribution requirements at all (IIRC).</p>
<p>barium, fair enough. But if one would do this (computer science and math, history and government, etc.), why go to an LAC anyway? I thought (after reading all these posts) that people choose an LAC because they actually <em>want</em> to pick many different courses. I don't think it makes sense to go to an LAC if you know already your concentration.</p>
<p>Maybe people choose to go to a LAC because they don't like the feeling of a big university? Maybe because they don't want to be taught by TAs? Maybe because they like the idea of all students living on one campus instead of scattered all over the city? Maybe because they don't want to wait in line behind grad students to use the lab equipment? Maybe because there are some LACs without any distribution requirements, but only very few universities? Maybe because one LAC has a program (academic or not) that doesn't exist elsewhere? Or maybe just because you got a great scholarship?
Imo, it is not about LAC vs university (you can pick many different courses there too), but about US vs UK educational style, isn't it? In that respect I prefer the US style because it does give you the choice whether to specialize or not, but the UK does not.</p>
<p>The only difference between a LAC and a university (by definition) is that a LAC focuses on undergrads whereas universities have larger grad departments in addition.
But some LACs have cross-registration programs with big universities, so you can even take grad courses while attending a LAC (e.g. Wellesley and MIT, Amherst and UMass).</p>
<p>
[quote]
In that respect I prefer the US style because it does give you the choice whether to specialize or not, but the UK does not.
[/quote]
Ah, not quite true. From my experience, I must say that most US colleges, the top ones, don't give you a choice. That's why I chose studying in the UK. But this really is a question of personal taste.</p>
<p>
[quote]
barium, fair enough. But if one would do this (computer science and math, history and government, etc.), why go to an LAC anyway? I thought (after reading all these posts) that people choose an LAC because they actually <em>want</em> to pick many different courses. I don't think it makes sense to go to an LAC if you know already your concentration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>aw5k, for the last time, stop letting LIBERAL ARTS fool u. sure, they are called liberal arts college, but no one is holding a fo fo to ur head and asking u to take every goddamn course and be a jack of all trades, master of none.</p>
<p>there are distri reqs, sure; but hey, u can still go hardcore on ur major--and the quality isnt gonna lose out to oxbridge/hypms.</p>
<p>doesnt make sense to go to an LAC if u already know ur concentration? oh, cos u dont wanna take stuff outside ur major? great, scratch the entire ivy league sans brown outta ur hitlist.</p>
<p>kudos to barium for taking the words right outta my mouth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
doesnt make sense to go to an LAC if u already know ur concentration? oh, cos u dont wanna take stuff outside ur major? great, scratch the entire ivy league sans brown outta ur hitlist.
[/quote]
Well, that's just what I meant. If you know your concentration already, why go to an LAC if you can go to Harvard/Princeton/Stanford/etc.? You'll be able to take some other stuff outside your major, too.
I guess barium answered this question (more focus on undergraduates).</p>
<p>Ok, whatever. I realize that LACs are good. Happy now? :)</p>
<p>Yeah. Thanks :)
And I admit that UK universities have their advantages as well.</p>
<p>Indeed. Dinner beckons.</p>
<p>I didn't see why we should even bother telling those European dudes how prestigious top LACs really are. I'm an international student coming from a place next to nobody, probably, know what LAC is. However, I wouldn't care what they think of it (and I wouldn't care if someone still believes the world is flat either). There're knowledgeable people (from top graduate schools and top firms) whose voices reflect better:
<a href="http://www.collegejournal.com/special/top50feeder.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegejournal.com/special/top50feeder.pdf</a></p>
<p>just bumping this thread back up to the top... ;)</p>
<p>I wanna continue the discussion too....
Who can we pick on now? :)</p>