Drunk on the LAC Kool-Aid!

Parents Forum
41

<p>mythmom: </p>

<p>First, I don’t have any bias against Williams at all. My kids have a terrible bias against Williams, which I tend to report and mock simultaneously. They always used it as the prototype of where they didn’t want to go, but that’s because they were familiar with it, had visited the Clark and MassMoCA, etc. They spent a lot of time nearby because that’s where one set of grandparents lived. </p>

<p>Second, I think you are way overstating your case if you don’t accept that Penn is a far richer environment for linguistics than Carleton. It’s a hive of intellectual activity. Any day of the week there are 40+ people around doing linguistics full time, and a roughly equal number of part-timers (like undergraduate majors). And then there are the major conferences that happen with regularity . . .</p>

<p>I completely get that people can find Penn’s education too shallow, but honestly that’s not because Penn doesn’t have great faculty and great grad students. It’s because there is a dominant culture of anti-intellectualism among the undergraduates, and that bothers some people. Anyone who wants a “deep” education at Penn only has to ask for it – but some kids won’t ask, or feel like they can’t sustain it without more peer support, or just resent that they don’t get more social status for being studious.</p>

<p>Anyway, as I said in the previous post, it’s a perfectly legitimate question whether Carleton, for all its relative “poverty,” doesn’t provide an equally good or better linguistics education to undergraduates. But it has neither the breadth or the depth that Penn offers. If it succeeds, it is because of the power of what is effectively a tutoring relationship with one or two faculty. It’s possible to get that at Penn, too, but also possible not to get it if you don’t pursue it. At Carleton, I think it’s harder to avoid.</p>

<p>I note the following: I have a relative who is a well-regarded Linguistics professor at a large public university. (And she has also taught at a top LAC as a visitor.) I have heard her answer several high-school students who ask her for advice on LACs at which they could study linguistics well. Her answer: No LAC covers linguistics adequately. If you have to go to a LAC, go to Amherst/Smith/Holyoke (because you can take classes at UMass) or Swarthmore/Haverford/Bryn Mawr (ditto Penn).</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>Although I generally agree with you, I think that a couple of points need to be made:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The flagships you list are among the best in the country. Northwestern has much more in common with UNC than it does with, say, UMass-Amherst. </p></li>
<li><p>I suspect that Northwestern’s graduation rates are more similar to those of Carleton and its peers than those of a typical flagship state university (again, those you list are not typical).</p></li>
</ol>

43

<p>Personally I would say there is a reason that professors send their kids to LACs. Of course, I went to a public LAC for undergrad (Grand Valley State University in Michigan which is a mix of a large state university/flagship and a LAC). Still, I think among the small private LAC colleges there is even more of a difference among the tiers of colleges than larger public universities. The reason being that if a small LAC is mediocre, prospective students will not attend due to price and go to a lower priced public university. On the other hand, if a public university is mediocre, they will still attract a decent amount of students due to commuters and availability of scholarships.</p>

44

<p>This thread is hilarious.</p>

<p>People, get your correlations/causations straight. You can’t compare Sweet Briar to Bryn Mawr or U Michigan to U Conn-Waterbury.</p>

45

<p>JHS: Fair point about a hive of activity, and I am more than willing to concede that for a linguistics major a uni may always be the better choice. Your relative, however, may be biased.</p>

<p>Two of my very close friends are in the linguistics dept. at local U where I have also taught on occasion. At times, one chaired the dept. They sent their son, also interested in linguistics and gifted in languages, to a LAC . Their point of view was that he would getting grounded in two or three languages of his choice and that linguistics is most properly a grad discipline.</p>

<p>S’s performing piano teacher (at Carnegie Hall among other places) felt the same way about Conservatories versus well-rounded undergrad education.</p>

<p>There are many schools of thought.</p>

<p>It may be true that no LAC really has a strong linguistics department. It may also be true that that isn’t important for someone wanting to be a professional linguist.</p>

<p>In this, as in all things, doing one’s research and homework is a good thing.</p>

<p>DS has been accepted into a reputation Art History masters after taking only two Art History courses at Williams. He is not ready for a PhD for sure, but Williams’ reputation in Art History was very helpful. It was just dumb luck. He didn’t know he was interested in Art History. He is going to be a PhD in a discipline he didn’t even study as an undergrad.</p>

<p>I think development of the thinking of the student is the most important element of career success, that and a strong work ethic.</p>

<p>There are some very vocational fields that this is not true for, and people do emerge ready to enter the work force. For those fields, I would, of course, encourage someone to enter that specific program and attend only a school that offered that program. In most cases, probably not a LAC.</p>

<p>I think I would still dispute the word “richer.” A monk meditating in his cell all day, Christian or Buddhist, would call his experience rich, richer than milling about doing daily things with the other monks.</p>

<p>It’s a strange word, but I hold fast there, though I <em>do</em> think you make excellent points. I will cede that I have, perhaps, overstated my case.</p>

46

<p>In regard to the student in the OP, perception has a great deal to do with school choice, even if the reality is quite different. No amount of data could convince my DS that one of our top 2 state schools is anything more than a home for lazy drunken morons who can get A’s without learning. I tried my best to sell the school, touting the Honor’s College, playing up the wonderful opportunities, etc but all it took was one weekday overnight with puke outside the door and a party-heavy night with Honors students to wipe it off the list for him and all of his friends. Not a single student in a class of 306 will be attending this year. So in the OP case, the beloved alma mater may be suffering from a deserved or undeserved bad reputation. OTOH, students in my old hometown consider it to be the highest honor to attend that school, and look down on nearby LACs or the “other” good state school which is only for engineers and aggie kids.</p>

47

<p>This thread is hilarious to read on a Monday. Good grief, why do people have to rank order stuff all the time…trying desperately to get apples, oranges and grapes lined up in an order from best to worse and then to start a thread referencing “drinking the Kool-Aid” which presumes that ranking apples, oranges and grapes is an essential activity from which one choice is so inherently wrong as to be deadly. OMG, it’s threads like this that keep me hanging around year after year.</p>

48

<p>I suppose there are disciplines where high school kids enter college advanced enough to “use up” the resources of an LAC. For them, universities would be a better choice. </p>

<p>My D is at an LAC majoring in a field with a small department, but given that it wasn’t something she studied in high school, there’s more than enough depth to get her through two years of more advanced level courses. The fact that her department doesn’t have the breadth or depth of a large research university really doesn’t matter.</p>

49

<p>I would add that the love of the LAC is often regional. Here on the west coast we adore our big unis. Big school, big sports, big everything! My D attends a LAC on the east coast. One that no one had ever heard of around here. Even our west coast LAC’s like the Claremont schools are lesser known. You would receive a hearty congrats on UCLA acceptance but a confused congrats on Pomona. (In my experience)</p>

<p>It takes all kinds of kids and all kinds of schools. For my kid an LAC is a great choice. For myself it was a big state school.</p>

50

<p>mommamocha makes a good point about regional preferences. I come from the Northeast, where LACs and other private schools are highly respected, and state universities are considered at least a little inferior. It was a revelation to move a few states south to an area where people actually like their state universities.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Should we not ask ourselves what an adequate program in Linguistics might entail? How much should an undergraduate learn in his or her four years? </p>

<p>I believe that a high school students who is unsure about choices (and career) might be well served to explore the field as well as explore additional avenues during this exploratory part of our education system. After all, how many high school students are there who KNOW what studying Linguistics might mean. And I say this half-jokingly as my sister considered a Major in Linguistics … until she figured out what she might actually study on a daily basis.</p>

<p>On the issue of undeveloped programs, one might look at what small schools that are members of consortia fo offer. As an example, a small school such as Pitzer seems to offer a very reasonable proposition to anyone interested in Linguistics. Make sure to check the link to the catalog.</p>

<p>[Pitzer</a> College - Academics - Linguistics](<a href=“http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/field_groups/linguistics/index.asp]Pitzer”>http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/field_groups/linguistics/index.asp)</p>

<p>When added to the cross-registrations to Pomona Cognitive Science (or others) it does seem that an undergraduate student could build a foundation sufficient to approach the next steps in the field. </p>

<p>PS Discussions that pit LACs versus larger universities are meaningless as long as they do not include discussing departments versus departments. Gross generalizations are hopelessly filled with misinformation and opinions. A student interested in Economics or Physics should not compare Yale to Pomona based on the presence or absence of courses in animal behavior!</p>

52

<p>Being on the West Coast I agree with mommamocha. Very few know what Pomona College is, let alone it is one of best LAC’s in the country. It is always confused with Cal Poly Pomona - a large polytechnic state U that has a strong emphasis on agricultural studies. My D is going to a small LAC, turning down more prestige UC’s because that is what is best for her. It is reputable and excellent yet very, very few people have heard of it even though it has been in SoCal since the late 1800’s. </p>

<p>We actually have had conversations about this lately because she has recently had many of her ‘friends’ questioning her choice to turn down well-known, prestigious UC’s for a small relatively unknown LAC. </p>

<p>But here is my two cents.
First of all, LACs are expensive - very expensive. Thanks to a generous merit award and a generous MIL who started a 529 when D was a baby, H and I can send D to this LAC. Otherwise it really wouldn’t have even been a consideration. She would have chosen one of the UC’s and I’m sure thrived beautifully there as her older siblings all did. But as I tell her and I truly believe, she is privileged to have this opportunity. The advantage we see for her, and what many consider a disadvantage is that the LAC is small and intimate. As the speaker said at the orientation, if you are looking for a school with a football team that draws huge crowds, don’t come here. The class sizes at this LAC averages 16 students per class and the classes are all taught by professors. There are no 300-400 student lecture halls and there are no TA taught classes. There is also a strong core curriculum required at her LAC that gets her out of her comfort zone and there is an interesting first year cultural studies program that all freshman must complete that puts a very heavy emphasis on improving writing skills. </p>

<p>She is an excellent student who excels in Mathematics, but with a passion for theater. At the small LAC we believe she can pursue both majors much easier than she could at a large university.</p>

53

<p>In the midwest, seems like the majority of kids go to the state flagships. I’ve noticed that the %students who graduate in 4 years tend to be much lower than LACs. I would guess that the lack of adequate advising and the possibility of getting lost among the masses may contribute to needing more years to complete an undergraduate degree. However, an in state tuition with promises for a wonderful honors college needs a serious look from a financial standpoint. That especially holds true for students who will likely not qualify for financial aid at a LAC. No easy answers here on what to choose!</p>

54

<p>I’d like to point out that there is a middle ground: the small regional state university or state-funded LAC. Probably the most underrated type of institution, in my opinion.</p>

55

<p>One of the perks of a lage univesity is the vast amount of different research going on. A physics major for example could have his choice of many many projects and would have an opportunity to sample different programs that interest him. A smaller LAC might be great in a handful of areas of research.</p>

56

<p>People seem to be very insecure about their choices and feel the need to defend them to death, even if one can get a great education at either. Furthermore, one cannot put all LACs and all Unis in the same basket. Nobody in their right mind thinks UVA=University of Northern Maine, or that Williams=Buenavista</p>

<p>I always find the study about where professors send their children fascinating because as a professor and before as a grad student, I never met one who sent their kids to a LAC. Probably a biased sample (but a large one), but still. </p>

<p>Finally, I agree there is regional variation. In the midwest, universities (public and private) tend to be much more prestigious than LACs.</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>Not all of them are. For example, several of the LACs listed here
[COPLAC</a> | Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges](<a href=“http://www.coplac.org/students/admissions.html]COPLAC”>http://www.coplac.org/students/admissions.html) have relatively low list prices, even for out of state students. Examples which tend to attract “better” students include UNC Asheville, UMN Morris, SUNY Geneseo, and Truman State University.</p>

58

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, you could always meet some in this forum --albeit virtually. A good start might be to read BClintonK’s posts. His D attends Haverford. </p>

<p>As far as the studies, there are also mentions of public school teachers sending their kids to private schools. In the end, perhaps we should recognize that there are many reasons why choices are made, starting with the preferences of the students. </p>

<p>Why is it assumed that the employment of the parents HAS to influence the choices between various types of schools? What could be the best place for employment might be a horrible choice for a particular … student.</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>I third this point. The classic quadrangle-on-the-hill east coast LAC - which, make no mistake about it, I adore! - just isn’t as quintessential a college experience out here in the midwest, where the Big 10 state universities are well regarded and the automatic choice of MANY very smart kids.</p>

60

<p>

</p>

<p>Doesn’t Penn have William Labov? Isn’t he one of the gurus of linguistics?</p>