LACs vs. "Regular" Universities

[cellardweller]

<p>

The survey only listed six of the top ten Ph.D programs

</p>

<p>You seem to have misread the table. The title is: Proportion from Named Institution Obtaining PhDs at Universities with 10 or More Top Programs. It does not refer to only six PhD granting institutions but to all universities with 10 or more top ten programs.</p>

<p>

Presumably, the more top programs included in the survey, the higher Amherst’s tally would go, since Amherst has no incentive (nor ability) to hoard its own undergraduates for four+ additional years.

</p>

<p>No, it won’t. The table includes ALL institutions with more than 10 top PhD programs. </p>

<p>

The fact that more than half of them come from their own undergraduates is not exactly earth-shaking news. In fact, it’s rather sad.

</p>

<p>I don’t know if it sad, due to nepotism or reflects better preparation by undergrads from research universities, more research experience, stronger recommendations or a combination. The top research universities are heavy feeders to each others PhD programs. That was my specific point. The decks are stacked against LACs and believing otherwise is simply naive. A very small number of LACs do well at placing their PhD candidates in top science programs, most don’t. </p>

<p>While the data is very clear in the sciences, I am not sure it is any different in other fields including the social sciences such as economics, anthropology, and political science and even in areas such as linguistics and philosophy. Another thread on CC seems to make that point. </p>

<p>If any general feeder rule could be drawn, it would be that the schools at the top of any particular NRC ranking are at a distinct advantage in placing their own undergrads into another top NRC ranked PhD program.</p>