<p>When the LACs say they produce the most science PhDs, does that mean their science curriculum is very rigorous? Say, more rigorous than the non-LACs?</p>
<p>not necessarily. it simply means that more students find their calling in the sciences at LAC and become convinced by their professors and lab experience, often at a near-graduate level, that a PhD in science is worth their time and effort and that it is a vocation to which they might aspire. Think priesthood or ministry. Admissions offices at the grad schools know of the strengths of these few LACs and recruit them heavily because the students admitted before them have succeeded in getting PhDs. We’re not talking about a hundred LACs here, but the very best ones, ones that have the professors, endowments, active researchers, equipment, summer internships, grant writers, etc.–and an absence of graduate students who would otherwise do the work.</p>
<p>It does not mean that you cannot get a science PhD by going to a rigorous state flagship or anywhere else. So much of life is what you DO rather than where you’re from. </p>
<p>
No, not necessarily. There are several problems with PhD production data. </p>
<p>(1) Most students have neither the need nor the desire for a PhD.</p>
<p>In fields like engineering, nursing, and education, you can get a decent job with a bachelor’s degree. For example, only 16% of new teachers have a master’s. Students in fields like geology, public policy, public health, and architecture can get great jobs with a MS/MPP/MPH/MArch/etc. Additionally, many students choose to attend professional schools like medical, law, and business school. Many liberal arts students choose to forgo further education entirely and enter directly into the workplace after college (e.g. an English major going into publishing). One cannot assume that a sociology department is weak simply because it sends all of its students to law school.</p>
<p>For an example specific to the sciences, 75% of the undergraduates in the biology program at Wash U are pre-med. That doesn’t mean it’s weaker in biology than, say, Hiram or Hendrix – rather, it simply means that most students there don’t want a PhD. Given the job prospects for new PhDs in the biological sciences, that’s certainly quite reasonable!</p>
<p>How many PhDs the program has produced in the past is much less important than whether it offers you the necessary resources to get into graduate school should you decide to apply. Even a program that has produced scarcely any PhD students at all may be an extremely strong and reputable department. </p>
<p>(2) There is no accounting for the quality of the PhD programs.</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between sending 3 students to Harvard and Stanford for molecular biology and 5 to Northern Arizona U. How valuable is production data without context? </p>
<p>(3) PhD completion data and classroom offerings are not necessarily linked.</p>
<p>To use an extreme example, Marlboro made the top 10 list for anthropology PhD production. The school, however, has no real anthropologists on faculty and relies on a couple of professors who touch on gender and culture issues. (In other words, it’s missing three of the four subfields and isn’t all that strong in the fourth.) Compare this to a school like Penn, which has a half dozen experts in each of the four subfields of anthropology, numerous archaeology labs, and a world class anthropology museum. For a student wanting access to the best professors and resources, there is no comparison whatsoever.</p>
<p>(4) PhD production rates are calculated using the overall size of the colleges, not the number of majors in each discipline. </p>
<p>In other words, a biology production rate is calculated using the number of biology PhDs produced and the total number of undergraduates at each college. A truly apples-to-apples comparison would calculate a per capita rate based on the number of graduating majors. Universities often have many excess programs – music, engineering, nursing, architecture, journalism, business, etc. – that greatly reduce their percentage of PhD seekers. Because LACs largely lack such programs, they do well in PhD production lists. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the many problems inherent to PhD production lists have not prevented people from using them without caution. LACs can offer terrific educations, and many are indeed great options for science students. You should do your own investigation carefully, however, and don’t take statistics at face value. </p>
<p>Also, “science” covers a range of subjects with varying levels of popularity. Biology is by far the most popular science, and typically the one with the largest faculty and best course offerings at most schools (although it has numerous subareas, not all of which may be well represented at any given school). But less popular sciences may have more limited junior/senior level course offerings given infrequently – check each school’s catalogs and schedules to see if this may be a problem with the specific major.</p>
<p>Which LACs do you think have the best biology departments?</p>
<p>Caltech</p>
<p>@fogcity
That’s sort of like asking which LAC has the best English department, but, the very tippy top best are
Wesleyan and Haverford.</p>
<p>If you are a girl, Smith College has a great STEM program</p>
<p>The LACs and their PhD production data cannot be overgeneralized. On the other hand, we should not ignore or deny the contribution of many good LACs make in the higher education of sciences. If you are sure that you will major in science and you prefer the learning environment of LACs (of course, with the assumption that the LAC education is affordable to you), you may find more camaraderie in an LAC.</p>
<p>I know Carleton College is one of the LACs that offer very good science programs.</p>
<p>Here is a comparison of the math/sciences Bachelor degrees conferred by Carleton, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern (I just randomly pick two good universities for comparison).</p>
<p>Biological and Biomedical Sciences: Carleton 60, Vandy 110, NW 126
CS: Carleton 32, Vandy 30 (another 10 for Computer engineering), NW 44 (another 9 in Computer engineering)
Math & Statistics: Carleton 32, Vandy 30, NW 59
Chemistry: Carleton 33, Vandy 18, NW 29
Physics: Carleton 17, Vandy 4, NW 12
Geology/Earth Science: Carleton 12, Vandy 12, NW 5</p>
<p>Please note the differences in size of the three schools. Carleton conferred 496 Bachelor Degrees in 2012-2013; Vandy 1,675, and Northwwestern 2,193. Vandy is about 3 times larger than Carleton in student size, and Northwestern is more than 4 times larger.
(<a href=“College Navigator - Carleton College”>College Navigator - Carleton College, <a href=“College Navigator - Vanderbilt University”>College Navigator - Vanderbilt University, <a href=“College Navigator - Northwestern University”>College Navigator - Northwestern University)</p>
<p>You may have your interpretations of the data above. I think many of the science students at an LAC like Carleton are those who know they want to pursue a science career and they interests are further fostered by the strengths of the LAC education. In a university setting, students majoring in pure sciences are often significantly outnumbered by other professional studies for various reasons. People have different preferences. Know yourself and choose the schools that fit you better. All kinds of the ranking data can provide some insight for our reference but are subject to their subjectivity. We all need to read data with prudence.</p>