<p>The PhD production of LACs is commendable, but where are they ending up? That makes all the difference, especially to the OP. </p>
<p>If you wish to become more well-rounded and less math-centric, a LAC is the obvious choice. But its clear that disari21 doesnt want that. Williams and Harvey Mudd are more concerned with well-roundedness than a research university, too. Thats their mandate. Hence the problem: math is one of those subjects that requires almost complete dedication if you expect to go very far in it. And I suspect that top grad programs are afraid, rightly or wrongly, that LAC undergrads were not as dedicated to math as they needed to be. Couple that with generally weaker course offerings and you have a problem that even a great school like Swarthmore has to face. </p>
<p>Maybe its similar with engineering. I dont know, do the top firms in CA hire Harvey Mudd engineering grads because they appreciate their breadth and interdisciplinary knowledge? Or do they favour the grads from the many excellent CA research schools? Lets face it, employers are quite often lazy and act on institutional or personal biases. Does a new grad in math or engineering want to chance that?</p>