^ Good points. I guess I was thinking of LAC type universities like Boston College. BC apparently offers a bachelor of science in engineering (BSE), but it’s not ABET accredited.
I love it when CC threads overlap! Read post #52:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/22867862#Comment_22867862
Like a lot of questions, the answer is it depends. For many, perhaps most, STEM students who just want a general foundation in STEM, the answer is probably not, as many posters have pointed out. However, for some STEM students, most, if not, LACs aren’t good fit. My S has specific programs he wants to pursue. He not only double major, but also pursues along two separate tracks in his primary major. The combination excludes most universities, let alone LACs.
@collegemom3717 That post #52 is a great post, thanks for pointing it out. Sums up nicely pro and con of attending either type program. For someone who has a kid who is good at many things or isn’t 100% sure they want to go into STEM, that makes a strong case for the LAC.
One of the things I have noticed even in high school is how some students focus on STEM, often at the expense of learning to write well or think about the world at large. Taking only STEM classes could really hinder a certain type of kid. I think it’s really hard to find programs that support both STEM and liberal arts. That’s sad as many kids don’t really know 100% what they want to do at 18.
To clarify this, BC’s engineering program will be brand new for class of 2025 and BC plans to secure ABET accreditation as soon as they are permitted to apply for it, upon graduation of the first class. Apparently ABET accreditation then has retroactive application for those grads. BC’s new engineering program is not analogous to an LAC 3+2 engineering offering.
https://www.bc.edu/content/bc-web/schools/mcas/sites/engineering/the-program.html
Amherst College has a brand new science center, a behemoth project that was the largest capital planning in the school’s history. It houses STEM and firmly cements the commitment of the college to science majors. https://www.gazettenet.com/Amherst-College-students-take-advantage-of-new-Science-Center-21240474
Wesleyan is one of the few elite NESCAC schools to offer graduate degrees
The PhD and MA degrees are offered in Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, and Physics, and the MA degree is also offered in Astronomy, Computer Science, and Earth and Environmental Sciences.
Either sound fantastic.
Of course, some H/SS leaning students do their best to avoid any math or science in school, leaving them in a difficult position to understand how math (including statistics) and science relate to or affect their chosen fields of study, or their understanding of the world in general. In college, it may be easier to be lopsided in this manner, since colleges often offer “physics for poets” type of courses to fulfill any math or science general education requirements.
Some of the best known STEM-focus schools like MIT and Harvey Mudd have extensive core or general education requirements, including substantial H/SS requirements, presumably to combat the stereotype expressed above.
I don’t see how that follows at all.
For one, a curriculum has little to do with school type. There are liberal arts colleges and universities with open curricula (e.g. Brown, Amherst), liberal arts colleges and universities with core curricula (e.g. Shimer, Chicago), and a vast number of LACs and universities with distribution requirements that range from minimal to extensive. A student in a college of arts & sciences at a university is receiving the same liberal arts education as a student at a liberal arts college – although their classes may be larger, and they may encounter more graduate students.
If anything, universities offer more academic flexibility than LACs, as they tend to offer a much greater number and diversity of majors.
Here is the main takeaway from the post mentioned by @collegemom3717 . The writer is a physician and scientist.
“I would say that students at Amherst and other LACs will get better teaching and possibly better mentoring in the sciences than at major research universities. They will have much closer interactions with professors if they choose to do their research at Amherst. The critical thinking and discussions encouraged in small, intimate science classes will be different than the way one learns the same material when the professor presents it to 400 students in a lecture format. Additionally, many Amherst students also will do research at other institutions (perhaps near their homes) during the summer. I recommend it highly for LAC students as a type of internship experience if they are considering a career in science in order to see what type of lifestyle that entails. I previously have hosted several Amherst students in my laboratory. However, I believe that there are hard to define, perhaps intangible, benefits to learning science at a liberal arts college, that seem to provide a strong foundation for success in science. Perhaps it is the broad liberal arts education, development of good writing and communication skills, encouragement to pursue one’s passion, and excellent mentoring that has enabled places like Amherst to train Nobel laureates in a much higher proportion than many primarily research institutions.”
^
I agree completely with this post, which is a different topic entirely from undecided students.
LACs are excellent choices for students interested in the sciences as well as those interested in extremely popular majors (e.g. econ and poli sci), as they can bypass the large lecture classes of most universities and - in the case of the sciences - get involved in research earlier and more actively.
Conversely, universities are excellent options for students interested in less popular majors with small class sizes (e.g. geology, classics, math, linguistics, area studies majors, etc.).
Of course, that’s not to say that you can’t get a great biology education at a university like UC Davis or a great math education at a LAC like St. Olaf, nor do LACs always offer smaller classes. Wake Forest offers smaller classes than quite a few of the elite LACs, for instance.
While the poster is a proud Amherst graduate and, of course, is focusing on their college, they were successfully making important points about Liberal Arts Colleges, and was using their own experience to be specific.
Anything that they write about Amherst can also be said for dozens of other Liberal Arts Colleges as well. Just replace “Amherst” with “Williams”, “Bowdoin”, “Colby”, Middlebury", “Vassar”, “Colorado College”, “Pomona”, etc, and almost everything that the poster wrote will still be true.
I’m not trying to diminish what the poster there was writing about Amherst, of course. I’m just saying that, if anybody reads what that poster is writing about Amherst, and says “I want to attend a college like that!”, there are, luckily, dozens of additional colleges from which to choose.
@MWolf , the writer says “…and other LACs.”
The point of emphaszing that post is that OP is asking if he/she will be at a disadvantage by attending an LAC to study STEM. I think the answer, again, is no. Bear in mind, just like many universities, some LACs are better in certain disciplines than others. For example, Lafayette offers engineering. Someone interested in studying that probably wouldn’t choose Middlebury, but if that same person wants to study foreign language, Middlebury is a great choice. (Should add that even at Middlebury, students can pursue a dual degree or a 3-2.)
@ucbalumnus Yes, Harvey Mudd and MIT certainly have some good liberal arts courses. And there are certainly some kids for whom math and science is to be avoided at all costs as you mention. But that wasn’t the point.
The point was, kids who are undecided about going pure STEM ( which I would say MIT is) might want to do science at a liberal arts school that fully supports things other than science. You can argue that English or poli sci at MIT is great and maybe it is, but I think few would choose that path intentionally. And taking astrophysics as a non-science major at a top school is very different than taking a real science course at MIT and vice versa. The core programs check off boxes so students can show that they can write, know math etc. But that doesn’t mean they are good at it. Lol. That’s why some avoid the heavy core curriculum at all costs and others love it.
Harvey Mudd is actually one of the few that can accommodate a student who is strong in all fields. It’s not a matter of taking a course at MIT in English. It’s a matter of exploring multiple fields any of which are equally strong and validated by the school. An English major at MIT is not going to have that sense IMO. I certainly wouldn’t pay for English at MIT if my kid could take it at Amherst or another school.
This goes back to my point, which is a kid who is strong in STEM and liberal arts has a hard time choosing. Many programs in STEM (engineering in particular) are very rigid with little room to take other classes. This can also be true of some liberal arts programs with a core. But it is very true of many STEM programs.
The OP asked if someone would be disadvantaged by taking STEM at an LAC. With few exceptions, I don’t think they will be. Some would just prefer to choose to go to a large University so they can change majors and paths. But other students might prefer the LAC. Personally, I think the LAC’s are more interesting if a student is undecided. Kids want to be in a place where there are others on the same path.
My kids still in the early stages so I don’t really know if they’d go to a small or large school. I do know that if they aren’t 100% certain about going into STEM, I’m not sending them to MIT even if they got a full ride.
LACs are among good places for undecided students. However, OP doesn’t seem to be undecided. S/he even indicated that s/he would major in either physics or biology. I don’t know how committed s/he is to STEM, but if s/he is, some universities would likely be better options than many LACs. Smaller classes in STEM, or any subject, also aren’t limited to LACs. They’re mainly the function of the size of the college relative to the size of its faculty. Caltech, for example, likely to have classes even smaller than most LACs on average. Having professors undistracted by their researches isn’t necessarily a positive either. Undergraduates do often benefit from professors’ researches, especially as they start taking more advanced classes or participating in researches in their fields.
Yes, engineering has a very structured curriculum in most colleges offering few opportunities for electives if one wants to graduate in 4 years. But I strongly disagree that other curriculums in STEM are that rigid. Math, Biology, Chemistry, and the like – all part of STEM – are in fact traditional liberal arts disciplines. (Many of the great philosophers were also math geeks.) For example, a typical major is ~10 required courses in English and in Math. Attending a major R1 uni and majoring in Math/Science will still allow someone to take plenty of lit/hume electives if one so desires.
The vast majority of kids at a R1 change their majors 2-3 times. Not to mention, that a large R1 has a bunch of other disciplines of which to sample that a LAC does not.
There are a lot of great reasons to choose a LAC, but undecided major is not one of them, IMO.
To build on what some others have said, here are the liberal arts colleges among the top 10 for number of PhDs per capita in
physics
- Harvey Mudd
- Reed
- Carleton
- Lawrence
and life sciences.
- Reed
- Swarthmore
- Harvey Mudd
- Kalamazoo
- Carleton
- Haverford
- Grinnell
https://www.thecollegesolution.com/the-colleges-where-phds-get-their-start/