As opinion, if the S signifies small, then it is redundant and does not offer utility. If the S signifies selective, then it may be useful for those (such as in an original post) who would like to make a narrower distinction than LAC provides.
2 Likes
It’s not that difficult. LAC= small. S=selective. Yes selective is subjective. But if I am looking for suggestions of selective LACs and you suggest one with an 80% acceptance rate, you don’t understand the assignment.
3 Likes
Which brings us back to Do Do Do Do… 
I’m reneging on my previous vote because the S is definitely not useful. LACs are small. Not all LACs are selective. So unless we universally agree (spoiler, we won’t) that S stands for selective, the S is clearly a source of confusion and needs to be gone.
1 Like
It is indeed redundant. Also, as well, too.
LACs are small.
If we’re talking about public LACs and feel a need to differentiate them, they could be referred to as PLACs.
S is only really useful if it stands for any of the following – though until there is universal agreement on which is the standard adjective, the speaker should clarify:
- Selective (how selective though? I suppose the definition is up to the user…)
- Silly
- Salacious
- Sleepy
- Sporty
- Other non-redundant adjectives starting with S
hehe
Ding, Ding, Ding. Winner, winner, chicken dinner
(I question why people added the ‘S’ years ago. It never. made any sense to me.)
2 Likes
I always assumed the S stood for Small. As a long-time reader of CC, I’ve observed that Small is of primary importance to many applicants looking at LACs. Size typically gets more emphasis than the Liberal Arts curriculum.
2 Likes
Right. LACs are small. So no need for S.
3 Likes
I was half joking, but my point was it seems the small matters more than the liberal arts. Maybe they should be called SC (small colleges) rather than LACs because for many, small seems to be the most important feature.
Caltech only has 950 undergrads. Is that the small you are seeking?
That’s a SSC - small, selective college
Wouldn’t it be?
I think it is pretty strange colleges like Harvey Mudd are in one category, and Caltech in another that also includes, say, Texas.
Caltech has ~1500 grad students. Harvey Mudd has zero.
Correct, which is most relevant if you want to go to grad school.
Meanwhile, Texas has like 41000 undergrads, Caltech and Harvey Mudd each under 1000.
Of course people can choose whatever criteria they like to sort colleges, I just personally see one of those groupings as much more relevant than the other.
or for those desiring an education without grad students, which is the point (I think).
Huh, I’ve sometimes heard the lack of grad student TAs noted as a potential positive, but the main things I have heard about are small classes, intimate student communities and academic departments, walkable campuses, personalized support and advising, and so on.
In fact, I have never heard anyone suggest that, say, Wesleyan or Bryn Mawr were notably less desirable because they do have some grad students. Doesn’t mean no one has ever thought that, but I have not seen it expressed.
In universities with a graduate student population, graduate students get the good research and lab positions. That is typically touted as one of the advantages of a LAC — that you don’t have to compete with a grad student if you want a research opportunity.
I don’t think the volume of graduate students at Bryn Mawr, for example, impacts the opportunities for undergraduates. But I suspect at Caltech, getting an undergraduate research position means you are working under a graduate student in the lab. In addition, PhD students have a habit of taking up a lot of a professor’s time. Undergrads are typically behind PhD’s in priority.
2 Likes
I have also heard that argument. It is usually not the top argument I have heard.
Just the opposite. LAC’s are desirable bcos they don’t have grad students. It’s all part of the culture of the tight-knit undergrad-focused experience. Professors teach all classes, including discussion sections & labs. Undergrads have first dibs on participating in research since there are no grads to compete with. Faculty have a higher teaching load than at a R1.
And yes, they tend to be small and focused on traditional liberal arts. That said, SWAT has an engineering program. A few LACs offer business.
D22 is a CS major at a LAC. We toured Mudd and other LACs, as well as universities. For STEM students, being in small classes that are taught directly by professors and having the ability to work directly for professors in the lab were consistently raised as big selling points for going to a LAC rather than tech school or engineering college at a university.
D is currently functioning in the role of TA in a CS lab at her LAC (they don’t call it a TA position of course, because LACs don’t have TAs, but it fills the same role during the lab section of a CS class). There is no way she would have such a role as a sophomore at a school with grad students.
Are you saying the LAC is great bcuz classes are taught by profs - or they’re not much different than a regular school, just using terminology to mask use of TAs and using undergrads vs grads at that?
Wasn’t sure if it’s an LAC endorsement or calling them a fraud ?