<p>I would suggest posters on this thread read the Ad Officer’s comments on the Harvard site. Presenting a general argument for “fit” and discussing the obvious pros and cons offered by LACs vs mid-sized uni’s he is being blasted by those who bleed true Crimson. I find it hard to believe that people cannot recognize that there is no “best” school out there for ALL comers. The diversity of size, teaching style, location, politics, core requirements, pre-professionalism vs “great books,” etc, etc are what make the higher education system in the US unique and so appealing. It is quintessentially American to offer this breadth of opportunity and I, for one, would hate to see a more narrow definition of the “right” college experience dominate.</p>
<p>Well said and one final observation: how do those who tout the superiority of the university experience over that of the LAC reconcile the fact that nearly every study that I’m aware of finds that students thrive in a small class-size environment, whether they are six or sixty-six years young?</p>
<p>One more comment re: Warm and Fuzzy?</p>
<p>Coureur: Many who head off to Harvard as well as more formidably sized Berkeley, Michigan, etc. are not only not intimidated by size, they are convinced they can slay the giant. These are often self-assured former HS leaders and future national leaders. But there are just as many who attend these schools fearful of exposure, knowing they will find comfortable hiding spots in even these top tier universities where Frosh/Soph classes of 100-500 students are so commonplace. These are schools offering the comfort and security of broad name recognition and, often, familiar faces from ones past.</p>
<p>Try hiding in seminar classes of 15-20. Anonymity is not an option. My experience, like that of Interesteddad and Carlmom, suggests that LACs routinely attract some of the most independent-minded, self-directed, and fearless to their ranks. They eschew the familiar and relish engagement. They sense greater potential for true empowerment in a smaller environment something they rightly or wrongly believe would be unachievable at an institution beholden to graduate programs and research priorities. The choice they make is clearly in the minority (only 3% of all college graduates originate from LACs) and I, for one, have great respect for their assertion of individuality. I doubt they need to be tucked in at night.
(see: <a href=“http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml[/url]”>http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml</a>)</p>
<p>Different strokes
.<br>
No best, no worst, just celebrate the choices
.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a relatively party-line position with little bearing on reality.</p>
<p>If your logic is correct, students choose basically colleges by perfect fit, and the individuals who opt to go to State U’s must be the most incredible of them all in terms of independence, those being the least warm-fuzzy usually. Also, no one would be interested at all in US News rankings. Why do I say this?</p>
<p>In cross-admissions at a high level, prestige usually wins out over most other factors–the one edging it out the most being financial. Did the student who was accepted to Harvard really accept because he or she visited and it was the most amazing fit… or because of the name? It’s the same with UC Berkeley, for instance, another university with strong recognition and a relatively burdensome bureaucracy–and for this one I personally know anecdotes of people who accept merely because it’s Cal, the reverse who opt for fit being far fewer in number.</p>
<p>This is even for UC Berkeley, which on this board seems to be somewhat disparaged! Why does the topic of whether or not one would choose Harvard if accepted come up so much, and why is there so much talk when someone decides to turn down Harvard if the name isn’t a factor in decision more than your vaguely defined, “leadership”?</p>
<p>This makes your sample of independent students and where they go somewhat unreliable, since the winners of prominent national competitions generally gets accepted to very prestigious schools.
I’m sure your struggling low-income student is also at least a little (I would think) independent, but usually isn’t winning Intel Talent Searches. Your characterization of independent doesn’t capture it by a long shot.</p>
<p>Your portrayal of the students at LACs is ridiculous, and your uniform assumptions of the student body at Harvard simply isn’t grounded in firm reality.</p>
<p>It isn’t that Harvard, Berkeley, and other places that have large bureaucracies don’t have any of the students you are describing (nor am I saying, as a converse, that LACs don’t have your “afraid” students who need handholding)–it simply isn’t the case that you can broadly generalize in this way and use it to attack groups of colleges that have produced so many leaders (take a look at Amherst alumni, if you would… or for that matter, most of the top LACs alumni).</p>
<p>As the poster noted above me, I doubt LACs really attract only the cowardly and dependent–which is basically what you are insinuating.</p>
<p>Well, by now everyone knows Harvard sucks, so it’s no surprise!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Never said that. In fact back on post #116 what I did say was:</p>
<p>“However, I am also sure that there are many kids at both top LACs and at Harvard who are smart and flexible enough that they could excel in either environment.”</p>
<p>My point on warm and fuzzy is that LACs and their partisans constantly promote them as such with descriptors such as: small, intimate, supportive, nurturing, caring, dedicated, one-on-one, student-focused, and so on that can be lumped under the phrase “warm and fuzzy.” I’m not saying these things aren’t good. My point was that a school described and promoted as such will likely appeal more to one type of student than another. As we constantly say on CC - It’s all about fit.</p>
<p>'Would you help me understand why you think that Harvard’s freshmen are more “independent, assertive and self-reliant” than those who attend highly selective LACs?"</p>
<p>Because they chose to attend a school where you can’t get much out of the experience if you don’t have those qualities, which is not true of LACs.</p>
<p>Here’s the LAC sell: Hanna, you’re deeply important to us as an individual; our small, intimate community will always support you; the minute you walk in the door, we’re going to shower you with personal attention and loving care; the chairman of the History department can’t wait to cook you dinner tonight.</p>
<p>Here’s the Harvard sell: We’ve got everything. If you want it, go get it. Good luck.</p>
<p>Well, who’s going to respond to which of those pitches? And who OUGHT to respond to which of those pitches? If they’re making smart choices – and I think most, though not all, seniors do make smart choices about this kind of thing – kids should take their own preferences, desires, and personalities into account when they’re picking which kind of school to attend.</p>
<p>Harvard has unmatchable opportunities available if you’re prepared to cold-call a famous professor and tell him why he should let you in his graduate seminar; show up for a sixth audition when the same performing group has rejected you five semesters in a row (true story); demand a second opinion if the first departmental advisor you visit tells you “no”; independently realize when you’re in over your head and affirmatively seek help; etc. etc. It’s going to be a long, cold four years if you don’t.</p>
<p>But not every 18-year-old WANTS to take that approach to college. Those who don’t quite wisely choose another, often smaller, school.</p>
<p>“how do those who tout the superiority of the university experience over that of the LAC”</p>
<p>Who on this thread has been doing that? I hope you aren’t suggesting that I’m among “those”; that certainly is not borne out by my posts. I’m “touting” the idea that no one type of school is best for everyone. I believe 100% that LACs are best for some.</p>
<p>I think for every student who chooses Harvard because he or she is willing to “hustle”, there is a student (or more?) who chooses it because of the brand.</p>
<p>Hanna has it exactly right. People who want to go to elite LAC’s probably would not like Harvard very much. The things that are unique to the LAC’s simply are not present at a large R1 university. If you want that close community, don’t go somewhere that does not offer it. People who want what Harvard does offer might find the closeness of a small LAC stifling. Not all kids WANT that kind of personal attention. Many of them want to get on with what they are doing, with professors around when they are needed, but not in the way. </p>
<p>So the independent, confident, “I’ll ask for help when I need it, 'till then, don’t bother me, I’m busy” types will favor the big universities. </p>
<p>Reminds me of discussions with students from Caltech and MIT who say that it is common not to go to class at all. “If I get the material, why invest the time in class?” These kids are surely getting top educations, but their approach does not require a lot of interaction with the faculty. At MIT one can get credit for “taking” many courses by passing the exams, no need to even pretend to have participated in the course. One would be crazy to take that approach and go to an LAC. Would be missing the whole point of being there.</p>
<p>The difference is not right or wrong, it is just different. There are lots of successful people coming out of both kinds of institutions. They need the college experience to match their goals and personalities. Comparisons of professional and grad degrees are interesting in that they reveal the orientations of the students, but they do not tell which type of college is “better”.</p>
<p>
And the dependent, fearful types will favor LACs that pull them out of their shells, leading to better outcomes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml[/url]”>http://www.collegenews.org/topliberalartscolleges.xml</a></p>
<p>“there is a student (or more?) who chooses it because of the brand.”</p>
<p>And people choose Swarthmore and Amherst without regard to their brand names? Come on. If a student chooses Alma College over Harvard, then you can be confident that that’s a student who doesn’t give two cents about brand names. But the kids we’re talking about – the kind who are deciding whether to shoot for AWS or HYP – have already decided that they want a brand-name college.</p>
<p>Who do you think wins the cross-admit battle between Williams and similar, but less selective, Hamilton? Williams, by a mile. So would you say that all those kids at Williams who used Hamilton as a safety chose Williams “for the brand”?</p>
<p>Hamilton and Williams both cost 40 grand a year. Most people would choose to buy a Mercedes over a Buick if the price were the same. Sure, a few people only care about the label they can show their friends. But most buyers, after a test drive, are going to conclude that the Mercedes is plain and simple a better car. It’s quite unreasonable to suppose that people who choose a product with a fancy brand name haven’t considered the substance of what they’re buying. That applies just as much to the countless Hamilton admits at Williams as it does to the countless Penn admits at Harvard.</p>
<p>Well, as I keep pointing out, achievement in later life is common among grads of both types of colleges. These kinds of accomplishments are available to people who go the independent route in college, and to those who pursue close faculty interaction. </p>
<p>There is a large ground between independent and confident enough to thrive at a place like Harvard, and “dependent and fearful”. Most people fall somewhere in between. </p>
<p>It is more a matter of personal style than a predictor of success.</p>
<p>“There is a large ground between independent and confident enough to thrive at a place like Harvard, and “dependent and fearful”. Most people fall somewhere in between.”</p>
<p>Right. And this isn’t about abilities; it’s about preferences. My college boyfriend, at Oberlin, failed to turn in a paper. The professor called him repeatedly at home to see what was wrong. Is that a good thing? It was great for him. For me it would be a huge minus; I don’t want my professors hovering over me that way. Since that level of intimacy is not a plus in my book, it cannot serve, as it did for him, a counterbalance to the downside of having fewer courses and professors to choose from.</p>
<p>“even though only 3 percent of American college graduates were educated at a residential liberal arts college, alumni of these colleges accounted for:”</p>
<p>Oh, for heaven’s sake. Residential liberal arts colleges are overwhelmingly private, expensive, and selective. If you want to compare them to larger private, selective, expensive schools, that might be interesting…but pointing out that Colgate alumni do better than the 90% of American college graduates who went to West Whoville State is surely not the strongest argument for LACs.</p>
<p>I question the idea that small classes and a close-knit environment equals a more coddled student. Being close to your professors adds a personal touvch, sure. But I believe it can lead to a different kind of demanding environment. Expectations may be just as high, but in a different way. </p>
<p>For every one of those “hovering” stories, I’ll bet you can find another anecdote, one that suggests the relationship between ‘small school’ and expectations that are different than what’s being suggested. </p>
<p>My anecdotes may not be worth much, since I’m one person and I didn’t go a selective school at all, but I’m all I’ve got. My college was small and you did get to know professors. </p>
<p>Was I coddled? In my German class I got thrown out of class for not having homework done. The professor didn’t want me sitting in there benefitting from the work of people who’d done the work. She didn’t care if my grades in there were sound, she didn’t care that we had good rapport as professor and student–that was her policy, and my butt was out for the day. It’s a far cry from a school where you get credit for skating in and acing the final whether or not you attended class. But it’s not coddling. It sure didn’t feel like it when I slunk out of class in humiliation; you can also bet your left arm I never went in without having my work done after that.</p>
<p>Similarly, my econ professor was known to put a signed “drop” slip in the mailbox of students who missed two classes without an excuse (because in a class of 50, he noticed). That’s not “coddling” either; it sure isn’t calling them up to see what’s wrong. </p>
<p>I’ll bet at Oberlin and Swat and the like you can find plenty of stories like this. They didn’t hover, they kicked your butt–just in a different variety of butt-kicking than you might get at Harvard.</p>
<p>Yeah, at a small school you may have more occasions when the “small” environment makes it more of a “caring” environment, and you’re probably going to have the unique experience of a professor knowing your personality as well as your intellect, which not everyone would find appealing. But that doesn’t mean it’s all going to be hovering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the opposite anecdote: I attended the largest ivy. At the time I was the “don’t bother me” type. I enjoyed my time there, even though i never met half my freshman professors - didn’t want to, didn’t have to. Well, when grad school came around, I floundered. I didn’t get good letters of recommendation, since few professors knew me well. I was pre-med, but slacked off when there was no one there to guide me. In retrospect, I think I’d have been MUCH better off at a LAC.</p>
<p>“Similarly, my econ professor was known to put a signed “drop” slip in the mailbox of students who missed two classes without an excuse (because in a class of 50, he noticed). That’s not “coddling” either”</p>
<p>It’s not “coddling,” but it sure is the way I got treated in high school, and I’d had plenty of that. It’s great that this was a good match for you, but I would have found this type of thing really insulting. I wanted profs to kick my butt by handing me a challenge, not by policing how I go about tackling the challenge. I wanted to be trusted to get the job done.</p>
<p>“It’s a far cry from a school where you get credit for skating in and acing the final whether or not you attended class.”</p>
<p>IMHO, if you can ace the final without attending class, then either the class was pretty useless or the final was poorly designed. If you can pull this off, then more power to you for not wasting your time reviewing material you’ve already mastered. I went to class because I got extra learning and better grades out of going, not because the professor would start leaving me sarcastic hints if I didn’t. What can I say…I was a big-university kind of a girl.</p>
<p>Sarahsdad,</p>
<p>That is a risk one runs by taking “don’t bother me” to an extreme. It is important to get to know some professors, if only for recommendations later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hah. I’ll see your story and raise you one. My daughter had a Swarthmore professor throw the entire class out one day this past year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not Swarthmore’s pitch at all. Their pitch is basically, “You are an adult who is eager to engage in academics and the community. We expect you to behave as an independent, responsible adult. We expect our professors to challenge you and we expect you to challenge our professors.”</p>
<p>
LAC fans might take some satisfaction at this stipulation that averaged LAC outcomes are better than averaged big U outcomes. That’s all the offered outcome statistics have ever claimed.</p>