Viennaman,
Since the top 10 research institutions start out with such superbly qualified students and graduate them in larger numbers than LACs, they'd better produce more Rhodes scholars, Ph.Ds, etc. In fact, it would be an indictment of the education that they're giving if they didn't. When you start to look at things on a per capita basis, and begin to look longer term, the picture looks a bit different:
Quote:
A study done in 1998 found that even though only 3 percent of American college graduates were educated at residential liberal arts colleges alumni of these colleges accounted for:
* 23 percent of Pulitzer Prize winners in drama, 19 percent of winners in history, and 18 percent in poetry from 1960 to 1998.
* 20 percent of Phi Beta Kappa inductees between 1995 and 1997
* 19 percent of U.S. presidents
* 9 percent of all Fulbright scholarships
* 8 percent of Forbes magazine's wealthiest CEOs in 1998
* 8 percent of former Peace Corps volunteers
Liberal arts colleges produce nearly twice as many graduates who earn degrees in sciences as other institutions (on a per capita basis). In a recent two-year period, about 20 percent of scientists elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences got their undergraduate degrees at liberal arts colleges.
|
I think a lot of presidents, scientists, Fulbright scholars, and CEOs might beg to differ with your view that their educational needs were not met. Its precisely the lack of early specialization and ability to think "longitudinally" that's one of the strengths of a liberal education for some people.
http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml