<p>Which is better for undergrad history: a large research university or a small LAC. I know the LAC would probably be a better learning environment, but would having more choices of professors and courses be better?</p>
<p>Why think EITHER, OR? Why not think BOTH, AND?</p>
<p>You could go to Swarthmore, Haverford or Bryn Mawr and take classes at any of them or at Penn. An intimate learning environment PLUS a large course selection.</p>
<p>If you think a Phd could be in your future, than a LAC might be better: You are more likely to find a faculty mentor (or two) to guide you and the teaching style (participatory, seminar-based, and research-oriented) may be better preparation for graduate programs. If you are not planning on graduate work in this field, you will have more options at a bigger school-but I really like Luckie’s suggestion as well. Unsure? Pick the school experience that feels right and trust that if you are happy there, you will do will and have sufficient options open at the end.</p>
<p>My suggestion would be the LAC. A U will have a larger selection of courses, but the info presented in those courses is also in books. Scholars make their reputation by writing books to spread their ideas, not just presenting them to those lucky enough to attend their lectures or seminars on campus. So if you have an interest in some area not covered at a LAC you can learn about it independently. </p>
<p>More important than just facts or theories about how to interpret the facts is learning to think like a historian. At a LAC you will be taking part in small classes where you are expected to give your thoughts, will have them challenged, and will benefit from the overall interactive style. At many larger U’s the classes will be much larger, often hundreds of students, for your early years. And even upper-division classes for a popular topic may have 100+ students, and other classes can still have 50+ which makes discussion difficult. Take a look at [Berkeley</a> - Online Schedule Of Classes](<a href=“http://schedule.berkeley.edu/?PageID=srchsprg.html]Berkeley”>http://schedule.berkeley.edu/?PageID=srchsprg.html) and search for upper-division history classes to see what I mean; seminars are small, but the meat of the course offerings starting with History 106 can still be large.</p>
<p>When you say “small LAC” do you mean top 25 LACs, or fourth tier LACs? (There are many more students in the fourth tier ones than the top 25). Same with large universities. </p>
<p>Fourth-tier LACs will not likely have better learning environments than first-tier universities, and vice versa.</p>
<p>I’d say the LAC for undergrad and the university for grad. But it depends on the LAC. Check out the faculty and course offerings of LACs that interest you. You’ll find that some LACs have 6 history professors, and some have 16. The more elite, true LACs will tend to have good history departments. Small schools with a pre-professional or vocational bent may have minimal offerings in the humanities.</p>
<p>Look at W&M. It is a small university so you get the best of both worlds and they have one of the best history programs. Plus you are in Williamsburg so there is a ton of history right outside of the campus.</p>
<p>Definitely go with the LAC, specifically Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, PA, home of the famous Gettysburg battle. Or UChicago, but that would be the only national university that I would suggest. Also look at Kenyon, Bowdoin, W&L, Colgate, Hamilton, Vassar, and Grinnel. Good Luck!!!</p>
<p>of the top ten schools that produce grads that go on to history PhDs, 8 are LACs (Grace College, Reed, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Carleton, Oberlin, Grinnell, Pomona) and 2 are universities (Yale and UChicago). so that says something.</p>
<p>“of the top ten schools that produce grads that go on to history PhDs”</p>
<p>Per Capita! I think it depends on what level of schools you are looking at. I can only say that of all the Professors I’ve taken classes from or read the CV of at my school, only one attended a LAC (He transfered there from UChicago). Most attended Harvard, Princeton, Cambridge, or Oxford for undergraduate. Of course that is just an example from a specific school. But what I am trying to say is that it would be wrong to think that LAC’s have something about them that produces Ph.Ds. I think that students who go to LAC’s might be more interested in learning for learnings sake on average, but there are a large number of equally interested students at top universities. I know at my school, of the 4 history courses I’ve taken so far as an undergraduate, none had more then 30 students. One had 7, one has 6, one has 15, and one had 28.</p>
<p>When you look at the per-capita top ten undergrad schools producing future PhDs in all disciplines, five are LACs, so it’s a wash. LACs have the advantage of no TAs, small classes, and close personal mentorship; non-LACs have the advantage of top research facilities, famous professors and broad programs. Both systems work very well, and have their own strengths.</p>
<p>Per capita is important to a HS senior. All other things being equal (though they never are), her chances are better, e.g., at a school where 25 of 100 go on to later earn a PhD, rather than 50 of 1000.</p>
<p>
Depends on what aspect of history you want to study. If you want to study a ho-hum subject like 20th century US history, then a LAC is great. If you want a more specialized area of history like Medieval or Islamic history, then a university would be a more reasonable choice.</p>
<p>If I am not sure which area of history I would like which would it be better to go to the larger school where I have more options?</p>
<p>Even at a first rate liberal arts college there will probably be more course offerings than you can manage to take!</p>
<p>History is one of those majors where if you want to go into the feild of academics, a LAC is “probably better.” But it is not always the case… I think the most important thing is finding a school you love, and if they have a good history program, great. If you go to a school you don’t like just for history… it won’t be worth it.</p>
<p>I majored in history at two large research universities, and had classes that ranged in size from maybe three hundred students, and one with four students. After the introductory courses, most of my classes had fewer than ten students. </p>
<p>I never found there to be much of a correlation between the size of a class and its quality.</p>