<p>While students from Amherst, Swarthmore, Reed, and some others seem to be pretty well represented, these are only a few of the top LACs. I have met students from conferences and REUs at some of the lesser ranked ones (past the top 20), and they definitely do not have the same opportunities as students at top research universities or state schools. For example, most of their research is done for a thesis, and could not really be published in a high caliber journal like Physical Review.</p>
<p>I would also argue that if you could get into a top LAC like Amherst, that you should think about applying to top 20 research universities. It seems to me that people emphasize LACs due to the teaching and small environment, but in my view that is just coddling students. To be a successful physicist, you need to be self sufficient and able to learn things on your own. In this respect, it is more important to be exposed to cutting edge research than the highest quality teaching (which you can most definitely still get at a research university). People also seem to argue that the presence of grad students detracts from the undergrad education. I find that it enhances it. Grad students are a wonderful resource to the overall community and are really great when it comes to providing advice for the future.</p>
<p>My personal experience has been at a top 10 research university. I started research the summer after my freshman year with funding and joined my current group the spring of my sophomore year. I am about to publish a first author paper with leaders in the field and will have taken 8 grad classes by the time I graduate. If I had gone to an LAC, not only would I have run out of courses to take, I would definitely not have had this research experience. So in the end, even though attending a top LAC like Swarthmore would not have affected my chances of getting into a great graduate school, I feel like the education I received at my university has better prepared me to take the next step in my career.</p>