<p>I attended a very small college, at the time with just under 1000 students (now it has about 1300). I never felt limited by the curriculum because the focus was so strongly on core disciplines in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences. This is a college that sends a lot of its graduates (about 25-30%) on to PhD’s and at least the same percentage to other advanced degrees – medicine, law, etc. When I chose this college I didn’t know that I would end up getting an advanced degree, though an uncle of mine who was a professor at a major science-technology university “warned me” when I was in the 10th grade that “You should look forward to being in college for 10 years.” He was right.</p>
<p>As someone who has taught in a large state university for most of my career, I still favor college curricula that focus very heavily on core skills and aptitudes, with the possibility for specialization but not, strictly speaking, “pre-professional training” for a specifici occupation. These days it’s critically important that students have a strong foundation in core skills and above all be prepared for continuous learning after college as they move into the labor force full-time. When they take their early jobs, it’s not like they start on the lowest rung of a well-defined career ladder. The labor market and careers are much more fragmented these days. When students take their first job it’s more like they’re beginning to ascend a climbing wall, not a ladder. They will develop their actual career in segments – a few years at one job, then shifting to another, perhaps finding an opportunity that will even reduce their immediate income, perhaps getting off the climbing wall and pursuing an advanced degree for a few years. But they need to be skilled in many ways of contending in the marketplace, and be adaptable above all, while still focusing on longer-range career goals.</p>
<p>In the choice between the small-small and somewhat-small college, the main difference is likely to be in the diversity of specializations (majors, concentrations, etc.) that are available. On the social side, however, one difference is likely to be that you will never be anonymous at the small-small school. You are known, or at least recognized, by the vast majority of other students, especially after first year. That can have advantages or disadvantages. You carry an academic and personal reputation from one course to another, and (to be frank) one personal relationship to another. </p>
<p>When my son was choosing among the colleges to which he was accepted he had options between small-small colleges (an LAC, my alma mater, ~1200 students), somewhat larger but still small LACs (e.g., Williams ~2000), mid-size universities with intensive undergraduate colleges (e.g., UChicago ~4-5000 undergrads), and some some very large universities (30K plus). I think he could have done well academically at any one of these colleges. But he decided that he wanted a school with a strong intellectual climate but he didn’t want to live in a fishbowl. He wanted at least some anonymity, an ability to shift interests and gears, and to find different people to associate with. This wasn’t so much a choice of what he could study. He could make his future career from any one of the schools that he applied to. They all had strong academic core programs. He realized this, and so did we. In the end he chose the mid-size option because it satisfied his intellectual interests, had a larger and more diverse student body, and was located in a large city that would allow him to easily get off campus now and then to follow some of his interests.</p>
<p>As his parents, our “opinion” about the choice he made was largely reflected in helping to determine the set of colleges that he applied to in the first place. After that, he decided. He found what he wanted and needed. And his career since then has been more interesting and rewarding than we could have imagined.</p>