LAC Grads: Do you ever regret attending an LAC?

<p>JHS, C is Caltech, which people sometimes throw in. I think the calculation is a little off, because I was looking for the HYPMCS and was willing to take any LAC including several that were not there. So, you’d probably have to go up on the LAC count or down to 2 if we held to SWAMP (which is Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst, and ?Middlebury, Pomona?). But no matter.</p>

<p>bclintock, I was just looking at one of the departments that I know. But, I tend to know some of the strong departments in more math-laden fields and am not aware of a lot of LAC grads at the high-end schools. But, maybe my experience, which is largely at the HYPMS is not representative. And, I don’t always know where they went to undergraduate school.</p>

<p>Oh, I forgot to mention one of my D’s classmates’ father received a Nobel prize for economics while both his children were attending Pomona. They went to Oslo to watch their Dad receive the honor. He himself was a product of a LAC undergraduate education. One of his children(my D’s classmate) has gone on to receive a PhD from Stanford and the other one went to Harvard for graduate education. We were able to meet him at a graduation dinner.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s business/econ. I’m wondering if in the case of business/econ as applied to LACs…especially ones with student cultures like Oberlin…it may be just as much/moreso due to perceptions of a given student’s “cultural fit” than perceived academic preparation. </p>

<p>I pose this for two reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>IME, business/econ professors and most business/econ undergrads tend to lean more conservative socially and politically than the Oberlin student body at large…especially when I attended in the '90s and moreso before going back to the '60s. I personally experienced having the supposed “hippie commie agitator” stereotype held against me at one job interview for a company in the financial/banking industry solely on the name of the LAC I attended. And I don’t seem to be the only one considering what I heard about an older classmate’s Rhodes scholarship interview with a homophobic retired Army officer. </p></li>
<li><p>Business/econ Profs who perform the selection may be guided by a slight anti-LAC bias…even if subconscious due to the culture within their academic fields. A bias which may be strengthened if the LAC is perceived as having a student body perceived to hold “anti-business” attitudes as seems to be the case when applied to my LAC and a few others.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>That’s great, except there are Oberlin grads in the econ PhD programs at Harvard and Princeton. </p>

<p>People who really know nothing about places like Oberlin, Reed, or Wesleyan are full of preconceptions. Those places have conservative students . . . just not so many closed-minded conservative students.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You can’t just say that because LACs send high proportions of their students to PhD programs, they’re better for those interested in graduate school for math. For starters, you have no idea about the quality of the PhD program they’re being accepted to, and I don’t think their proportions are so high at top schools. But more importantly, most LACs will have difficulty supporting strong candidates for these schools. St. Olaf gets used as an example a lot, but they don’t offer a lot of courses many of my math major friends took even their freshman and sophomore years. Schools like Harvey Mudd, Pomona, and Williams seem to have a deeper curriculum, but students there are still going to have a hard time catching up to the kids at Harvard, MIT and Princeton.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is false. Harvard has PRISE, and MIT has UROP.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A math major interested in a LAC does need to choose carefully, since a decent number of LACs are rather thin in math course offerings. Also, students who are beyond the calculus BC level in high school are more likely to exhaust the course offerings at an undergraduate-only school if they major in math (I remember seeing the top students in math taking graduate level math courses as undergraduate juniors or even sophomores).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But are the populated by a super majority of closed minded liberal students? Not an antagonistic question but one which is under discussion in our household and will be an integral part of the final decision.</p>

<p>If your son is open to California, you might want to consider Santa Clara University. Small LAC with great business program - close to Silicon Valley and San Francisco - might be the best of both worlds! It is a Catholic school, but when compared to several other Catholic schools we visited, I would rate it one of the most diverse in community. The students universally reported they were very happy (even the ones that weren’t leading tours - just hanging out) and the campus is beautiful. Also, 7 minutes from the San Jose airport.</p>

<p>I just saw the thread title and have read only the first five posts.</p>

<p>D graduated from an LAC, applied for one job at a think tank six months before graduation and got it, worked there for three years and is now in a Top 10 PhD program. Regrets about the LAC? No. Probably would change a couple of courses.</p>

<p>Add: double major, Math/Government. Internship in D.C., course work in Budapest. Graduated summa cum laude. Will walk on water after first creating it.</p>

<p>Okay, so I added a fib.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is this your opinion? Catching up to what?
I don’t believe you have to have taken the courses to be able to understand and grasp deeper concepts and I believe the kids at Pomona, Harvey Mudd and Williams are intellectually comparable to those at HPMSC. As a matter of fact, I know students who chose the above mentioned LACs over Harvard MIT, Princeton and Stanford.</p>

<p>

A lot of this is just plain wrong wrong wrong. The best you can say is that <em>some</em> LAC’s might suffer <em>some</em> of these problems. D is in a cohort of 20. Take out the internationals and you’re left with 10. Several of the 10 went to LAC’s. Top 10 program. Realistically Top 5-6.</p>

<p>So it goes,cbreeze. Other kids chose publics over LAC’s and HYPSM and are also “intellectually comparable” and doing quite well.</p>

<p>“You can’t just say that because LACs send high proportions of their students to PhD programs, they’re better for those interested in graduate school for math.”</p>

<p>Nowhere did I say they were “better”. There is a lack of clear evidence that they are worse. The evidence simply says what it says. Of students who go on to Ph.D.s in math, of the ten highest per capita, four are LACs, two are Ivies. </p>

<p>“First of all, there ARE formal programs for paid research at LACs. (I know, 'cause my d. was in one.) As you noted, there are none at Harvard, Princeton, or MIT.”</p>

<p>“This is false. Harvard has PRISE, and MIT has UROP.”</p>

<p>I didn’t say so. A faculty member there said so. (Except for Princeton, where my d. is a head preceptor.) Lack of good mentoring? Or knowing what is available at one’s own institution? </p>

<p>Meanwhile, outside of math, the evidence is pretty much the same. And it is NOT limited to Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore. Smith way outperforms all of them when it comes to Fulbright research fellowships. So does Pitzer. (that’s just an example). Bryn Mawr outperforms them in future Ph.Ds. And since we I think we can agree that, at least as regards entering SAT scores, Smith, Pitzer, and Bryn Mawr students have lower ones than those and than all the Ivies, something very special is going on inside the institutions themselves. </p>

<p>I think what we have proven from this whole thread is that everyone will have their own individual predilections, but there is no easy conclusion that liberal arts colleges - and I don’t mean just the so-called top ones - can’t hold their own with the best that research universities (or Ivies) have to offer, at least as regards the education received.</p>

<p>To answer the OPs question:</p>

<p>I graduated from Bryn Mawr last year and I would not attend a LAC again. My main complaints were:

  • the lack of resources (advanced courses, professors, seminars…) in my major department
  • the lack of a peer group with similar interests (I felt like the only one super excited about my major, even though several students in my year ended up applying to PhD programs in the same discipline; the same was true for my non-academic interests)</p>

<p>I ended up spending most of my junior and senior years at a nearby research university, auditing their courses, socializing with their students and working with research groups there. (I convinced some professors to give me independent study credits for my academic work off-campus.)</p>

<p>I suspect that the aforementioned issues would have arisen at any other small college too. I also had an issue with my college in particular that may not generalize: we were not prepared, even just mentally, for the job market. </p>

<p>Bryn Mawr has one of the highest PhD productivity rate out there and almost a third of our graduates report on their senior exit survey that they will be attending a graduate program the following year. I am not convinced that most students really want to go to grad school though. Instead, there was a general atmosphere of hopelessness regarding job prospects. A lot of students in my year just assumed that they wouldn’t be very successful on the private job market, so they applied to grad school or formal programs like Teach for America or the Peace Corps.</p>

<p>I found a very different atmosphere at neighboring Haverford, where students were much more confident about their job prospects and aggressively built up a resume in their 4 years in college.</p>

<p>

I am a Bryn Mawr alumn and I sincerely wish that Bryn Mawr had a lower rate of students pursing PhDs. I am convinced that our high grad school rates (almost a third enroll in grad school immediately after graduation!) mostly reflect a general sense of hopelessness regarding our prospects on the private job market, rather than academic aspirations.</p>

<p>

Math is about the worst example you could possibly pick to argue that that liberal arts graduates are well-prepared for PhD programs. Math graduate programs are quite explicit that they are seeking students with as advanced coursework as possible. The top graduate programs rarely admit students without prior graduate-level work. For example, I was the only liberal arts college graduated in my year who was admitted to the math PhD programs at MIT, Princeton and Stanford. However, I was auditing graduate courses at Penn in my last two years of college, so I had a much stronger background than most liberal arts college students. Liberal arts college students (at least those aspiring a PhD in math) certainly suffer from the lack of resources.</p>

<p>I’d also like to point out that a high rate of students pursing PhDs does NOT mean that students are generally well prepared for these graduate programs. Heck, our math advisers at Bryn Mawr recommended that we avoid PhD programs with preliminary exams on undergraduate material, because we may not be very well prepared for those…</p>

<p>I went to a small liberal arts college in the South and am currently getting my PhD at a top 10 program in my field. Do I regret going to a SLAC? No, and if I had to do it over again I would still go to a LAC although probably a slightly larger and much richer one (my LAC had a student body of 2100 students and an endowment of around $215 million; I would this time choose one with a student body of about 6,000 students and a much larger set of resources).</p>

<p>Pros:</p>

<ol>
<li>Individual attention from professors, without vying for time with other students.</li>
<li>Small, discussion based classes. With less goofing off. I am TAing an intro psychology course with 200 students in it. The number of students whispering, giggling, checking email, shopping online and flipping through Facebook throughout the lecture is astounding. Nobody ever did that during the classes at my school. We didn’t even bring our computers to class because everything was a seminar, a discussion.</li>
<li>Strong focus on a liberal, well-rounded education. I got a strong foundation in my field (psychology) but I can also converse on a variety of topics.</li>
<li>Individualized strong research experience. I wanted to go into academia. It’s a myth that LAC students can’t get research experience, as research is still required of professors at LACs. They may not have the most expensive equipment or a huge lab, but what they also usually don’t have is graduate students. That means that they need the labor of undergraduates to help them with their lab, which means that as an undergrad researcher in a lab of 3, I had the responsibilities that a grad student normally would have as an undergrad. I was also paid for my research, and I started in my sophomore year. Many are encouraged to start as early as the second semester of their freshman year, and there was a LOT of research going on at my LAC. We were also in a college city with three large research universities located nearby (two of them very prestigious), and plenty of students did research with the professors at those schools.</li>
</ol>

<p>And at some schools, they DO have the best equipment and a large start-up budget. I’m on the other side, now - about to go on the job market in the fall - and most prestigious LACs have a research expectation that comes with start-up funds for buying sophisticated equipment. They expect you to involve undergraduates in their research and try to give you the ability to do that.</p>

<p>I watch the undergrads here at my Ivy. They work with postdocs and grad students, and not with the professors. They are not paid (not in my department, anyway). They get 1-2 years of experience, typically. Our PI does not know them individually, beyond their names, so our postdoc writes recommendations for them. Typically undergraduates do not get to work with that superstar professor as an undergrad, even if they are pushy and know how to ask. I think even the pushiest undergrad would still end up working with a postdoc in my department.</p>

<ol>
<li>Alumnae network, though small, is very tight. Meeting alumnae of my college is like meeting a sister, or a distant cousin. They are always willing to help and implicitly trust you even if they don’t know you very well. (I’m not implying that it’s not at larger schools.)</li>
</ol>

<p>Cons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Starts to feel claustrophobic after 2 years.</p></li>
<li><p>Resources may or may not be lower, depending on where you go. Clearly my LAC doesn’t have as many resources as Emory or Duke, but a Swarthmore or Amherst may be able to match what a student could get at a place like that.</p></li>
<li><p>Programs and majors can be more limited. At my school, in the psychology department, you were mostly limited to the basic foundational classes plus a few pet specialties of some professors (adolescent psychology, African-American psychology, etc.) There wasn’t a health psychology class in my major until they hired a health psychologist after I graduated. At other schools you may get varied and interesting classes like Drugs and Behavior or Psychology of Human Sexuality.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>HOWEVER, I will say that my psychology department’s foundational course offerings and programs, IMO, compare favorably to the students here at my Ivy. Our general psychology introductory course spanned two semesters whereas theirs is only one, so they get less information crammed into a very short period of time whereas I felt like my introductory course helped me pick the subfield I wanted because we spent more time on the subfields. Here, the students are only required to take one laboratory class, whereas my program required two. And my program offered an advanced statistics course that was a requirement of the program (students could either take that course or take a counseling course), whereas this one only has a basic stats class. My Statistics II course set me up to be a methodologist and quantitative scientist on the grad level. I also have to say that while the classes were less of the “interesting” variety, there were also more classes focused on professional psychology, and I saw more students doing non-research based internships that were focused within psychology than here. We were also required to take a unifying senior seminar and there is none here. So in many ways, I think that my LAC department’s undergraduate program is stronger than this one’s even though this is an Ivy with a top 20 grad program.</p>

<p>I also think I learned to write better. The paper requirements at my undergrad were far more rigorous than the ones here, most likely because grading 20 papers is much easier than grading 200 even when you have 6 TAs to help you. But IMO, it shows in the writing. I’ve been baffled at some of the writing I’ve gotten from bright Ivy students. That’s just within my department, though - I have an RA who’s a philosophy major and they are always writing papers.</p>

<ol>
<li>Library holdings. That was a biiiig con at my LAC, which shared a library with two other LACs in a consortium. To be fair, even among those three LACs the total number of undergrads was about 8,000, so it’s not like it was overcrowded. But this meshes with resources, so the library holdings were smaller and I had less access to research papers I needed, plus our ILL was weaker. I LOOOOOVE my grad university’s library system, I am SO spoiled here. More places to study, and I can obtain virtually any book or article I want here.</li>
</ol>

<p>This is important even if you are not doing research, as most classes require papers.</p>

<p>

servmom, there are studies that indicate those students who were accepted to top schools as well as to publics but chose the public route DO as well. The key is that they were accepted to both public and HYPSM types school.</p>

<p>cbreeze,I am aware of these studies. There are many kids ,however, at publics who did not bother to apply to HYPSM type schools and are doing quite well. Not sure the key is that you have to have been actually accepted to other schools-probably more that you were the kind of person that would have been competitive for top schools.</p>

<p>“I’d also like to point out that a high rate of students pursing PhDs does NOT mean that students are generally well prepared for these graduate programs.”</p>

<p>I’d point out that the study on undergrad origins of PH.Ds was for students who COMPLETED their Ph.Ds. Bryn Mawr did awfully well. ;)</p>

<p>I didn’t pick math as an example. But the same study indicates where math Ph.Ds did their undergraduate educations. Six Ivies, and most “research universities” (including Stanford) don’t even make the top 10 list. Four LACs do. (But math is probably a poor example - after all, there are so few of them.)</p>

<p>Perhaps the best examples are those departments (not limited to science) where there are opportunities for undergraduate research. Or perhaps look to rates of success in being awarded research Fulbrights. Doesn’t matter, though. Results are the same.</p>