Personality differences between those who go to large national colleges vs small liberal arts?

[Data10]

@Data10 - you forgot that there is an engineering school run as a liberal arts school - Harvey Mudd.

Note that my post stated,

“Williams, Pomona, and Claremont were mentioned in the original post, so I’ll assume more selective LACs like this, which are typically the focus of the forum – ones that emphasize liberal arts majors, and have limited engineering offerings.”

I did not forget Mudd. I instead emphasized LACs that are more similar to the ones mentioned in the original post and stated my reasons for doing so.

A. HYPSM schools have even fewer low income kids, and the median income of HYPSM families is higher than that of elite LACs.

Specific percentages are below from the NYT study. I am using 2015 dollars rather than taking the time to inflation adjust, so numbers are lower than my earlier post

H – $169k median
Y – $193k median
P – $186k median
S – $167k median
M – $135k median

Comparing to the LACs that were mentioned in the original post of this thread, the 3 mentioned in the original post have a slightly higher average or median than HYPSM, although there are plenty of other LACs with far higher median incomes than HYPSM, such as Colgate with a $270k median. As stated in my earlier post, most of the colleges with the highest median incomes are LACs. That said, yes HYPSM and other elite privates have a large number of students from wealthy families, not just LACs.

Williams – $186k median
Claremont McKenna – $201k median
Pomona – $167k median

Yet HYPSM students generally go for high-income majors, and are generally known for the high income of their recent graduates.

That was largely my point. Family income is not the only contributing factor to why some students choose do not target a high paying vocationally focused field, which relates to why there are correlations with personality and interests.

You seem to have made the unsupported unwarranted assumptions.

Doing a PhD is not a ticket to a low income life, Doing a PhD is not a ticket to a low income life,

No assumption and no statement along those lines. Elite students who are targeting money are more likely to pursue tech in Silicon Valley, investment banking on Wall Street, a vocationally focused professional degree, and so on… not spending many years of additional school pursuing a PhD. If you are looking for the highest financial return, you generally don’t pursue a PhD, but that doesn’t mean a PhD is a ticket to poverty.

Finally - in at least one study, kids who went to LACs were more likely to decide on doing a PhD AFTER they started school than kids who went to research universities, so a kid who wants to do a PhD is LESS likely to choose a LAC.

I quoted the same study in my previous post before reading your post. You are referencing a survey given to faculty at LACs. ~10% of faculty at LACs said they knew they were attending grad school while in HS – very few for both those who attended undergrad at research colleges and those who attended undergrad at LACs. Most people don’t “know” they are going to attend grad school while in HS. Instead it’s more something they are considering or more a general interest in research/learning that increases in college. This alone is enough to avoid drawing conclusions, without even considering that the faculty likely attended undergrad several decades ago, the small and biased sample size, asked about grad school rather than PhD, etc.

PS. LACs cannot produce PhDs, so I guess you meant “have the largest number of students who go on to do a PhD”.

The “produce” wording is a direct quote from the link – “This infographic shows the top Ph.D. feeder schools across the country that produce the highest number of graduates who eventually go on to earn a PhD.”

[Data10]

small liberal arts colleges such as Williams, Pomona, Claremont, even Rice, but was curious to see if there were some observable differences in kids’ personalities or interests?

You can find correlations between personality/interests and a wide variety of things – what car you drive, what groceries you buy, your college major, LAC vs large national, etc. However, those correlations may be small, with many exceptions.

As I mentioned earlier, there are a wide variety of different types of LACs with different characteristics and different types of students. Williams, Pomona, and Claremont were mentioned in the original post, so I’ll assume more selective LACs like this, which are typically the focus of the forum – ones that emphasize liberal arts majors, and have limited engineering offerings.

As has been noted, one correlation in interests is athletics. More than 40% of students are varsity athletes at Williams and Claremont. Other selective LACs usually also have a higher percentage of athletes. With a smaller student body, a large portion of students need to be athletes in order to field teams. In contrast, very few students are usually varsity athletes at larger flagships, sometimes as little as 2% of students. HYPSM… type research colleges also usually have a much smaller portion of athletes than selective LACs, although not as small as big flagships.

The lack of engineering offerings and emphasis on liberal arts also influences student selection. I’d expect students are more likely to be the type who like learning for the sake of learning, rather than than the type who see college as a necessary stepping stone on the way to getting a high paying job after their bachelor’s. This likely relates to why selective LACs tend to have a high rate of students receiving PhDs and a higher rate of students who are children of professor’s. For example, according to https://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/infographics/top-feeders-phd-programs , 19 of the top 20 colleges that produce the most PhDs are LACs. The single outlier is Caltech. HYPSM do not appear on the list, nor do public colleges. As noted in the Amherst paper linked above, athletes at these colleges can show different trends.

One of the reasons why selective LAC students may be less likely to be concerned with getting a high paying job after graduation is students tend to come from wealthy families. For example, the NYT study found that families at Claremont had a median inflation adjusted income of $217k with 33% of students in top 5% families. Williams was not far behind at $200k at 42% of students from top 5% families. Colgate was even higher with a median income of $291k and 58% from top 5%. All of these median incomes were above HYPSM and far above all publics. 7 of the 9 colleges with the wealthiest families in the study were LACs. The 2 exceptions were WUSTL (need aware) and Georgetown. I could list many other correlations, and of course there are many exceptions to all of the correlations above as well.

Regarding drinking and drug use, I expect you’ll find a good amount of drinking and soft drug use at almost any college. There may be a small correlation with LACs, as several studies have found that students at smaller colleges are more likely to be heavy drinkers than students at larger colleges (https://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/Journal/082-Presley.pdf ). A quote from the NYT article is below. Other factors that were correlated with heavy drinking in the referenced studies include being located in northeast (surprisingly strong correlation), portion of students in fraternities/Greek, portion living on campus, portion of students who are athletes, portion who are White, and portion of students under 21.

At four-year schools with enrollments of less than 2,500, students under 24 years old averaged seven drinks a week, as against 4.59 drinks at campuses with 20,000 students or more. {comparing traditional on campus students}

“Small schools tend to be located in rural environments where there is less to do, so people may turn to drinking more,” Mr. Meilman said

.

[Happytimes2001]

So many false assumptions here and meaningless drivel. I have to laugh. Dropping thousands of people into your pre-conceived buckets will not make any of your assumptions true folks. What I would say to many is, take away your single point of reference, your own education. Open your mind. Think about the benefit and drawbacks to each approach. Realize that your single point of reference isn’t going to apply to anyone else but you.
There are thousands of people at both types of universities do will do splendidly. I hope no one on this thread is an advisor. Yikes.

[1NJParent]

Engineering majors have a higher rate of PhDs than most other fields. If you compare by specific majors, such as rate of PhD production among economic majors, the same pattern emerges with LACs dominating.

Far fewer engineering majors pursue PhD degrees than students majoring in purer sciences, because most engineering fields don’t require PhD degrees. Researchers in sciences, on the other hand, do benefit much more from having been through a PhD program.

I should have said “one of the reasons” instead of “the reason” for more PhD production at LACs is the lack of engineering majors. Some of the other reasons are the lack of pre-professional majors, and majors at LACs tended to be less specialized and more general as their students don’t specialize as early as those in their university counterparts.

PhD production among economics majors is not a good indicator. The economics major at many top universities (where students are more likely to pursue PhDs) is a really a “general-purpose” major, or a substitute for a business/finance major since most of them don’t have an undergraduate business school. So for many, it’s really a pre-professional major. They never intend to pursue PhDs in order to become economists.

[Knowsstuff]

I am not understanding the comment of lacs not producing producing PhDs. My daughters lac, Beloit is ranked 20th among colleges producing students that go on to a PhD program.

[Happytimes2001]

@Knowsstuff I’m not understanding any of it. Mainly because it’s all based on someone’s singular assumption of various categories they find important. Partly amusing partly bewildering, partly sad.

[Data10]

Far fewer engineering majors pursue PhD degrees than students majoring in purer sciences, because most engineering fields don’t require PhD degrees.

Do you have a reference for this, aside from the stated assumption? If you compare the number of PhDs to number of bachelor’s degrees, it suggests that physics would have a higher rate of PhDs than engineering, but not other sciences and certainly not most non-science fields. While a PhD in engineering is generally not mandatory for employment, a notable portion of engineering students at some highly selective colleges still pursue them. Some pursue PhDs out of interest in research or a career in academia, and some also pursue PhDs, with plans on working in private industry. There are also subfields of private engineering in which PhDs are often preferred, including the one in which I work.

PhD production among economics majors is not a good indicator.

I chose Economics as an example because it is often the most common major at many HYP… type highly selective colleges. A similar pattern occurs with other majors. For example, Swarthmore also has the highest rate of PhDs among Political Science with the rest of the top 20 being all LACs; yet Swarthmore has a smaller portion of PS majors than most Ivies. Swarthmore also is not that lacking in engineering majors compared to many Ivies. For example, the CDS mentions 7% engineering majors at Swarthmore compared to 5% at Harvard and 6% at Yale. It’s a similar low percentage at all 3 of these selective schools, so it doesn’t offer a good explanation about why Swarthmore has a high rate of PhDs in so many fields, and Harvard/Yale in so few compared to selective LACs.

[1NJParent]

Because the demand from industries for engineers, an MS is more than sufficient for most positions. Only those who want to pursue high level research or career in academia need to get a PhD. This is in sharp contrast with career in pure sciences, where one can hardly function effectively without a PhD. Data can be manipulated either knowingly or unknowingly. Sample sizes are almost never large enough or the sampling duration never long enough to produce reliable results. Common sense is always needed.

Political Science is another bad example. Just like economics majors, Ivies have lots of PS majors who never intend to do research as a political scientist. Many of them want to be politicians, lawyers, etc.

[Data10]

Because the demand from industries for engineers, an MS is more than sufficient for most positions…

Yes, you mentioned that several times. I asked if you had any evidence besides that assumption. It sounds like the answer is no.

The previous stats suggesting a higher rate of PhDs among engineering majors than most other fields were based a total of all degree recipients as reported by the NCES, so sample size is not an issue, nor is duration. The NCES stats also indicate that more than 10k students received PhDs in engineering fields in the most recent year, which is a larger number of PhDs than occurred in any other Carnegie major grouping except for education. Thousands of students are getting PhDs even though PhDs are not mandatory to be employed. Similarly most people getting degrees in science fields do not pursue PhDs, even though some jobs require them. Many of this no-PhD group does work that does not directly relate to their degree. The same could be said for almost any non-vocational degree. However, some excellent jobs that are more directly related to degrees are also available. For example, one of my relatives does nuclear physics related work for a branch of the government, with only a bachelor’s.

Political Science is another bad example. Just like economics majors, Ivies have lots of PS majors who never intend to do research as a political scientist. Many of them want to be politicians, lawyers, etc.

I’ll use History as an example this time. Again Swarthmore is 1st in rate of future PhDs and the top 16 are all LACs, yet 3-4x as large a portion of students major in History at Harvard/Yale and several other Ivies than at Swarthmore. If history is also too pre-professional, you can choose whatever non-vocational major you like. In the linked chart, LACs dominate all listed fields in rate of PhDs, and Harvard/Yale do not appear among the top 20 in any field.

[ucbalumnus]

Wouldn’t stats for BA/BS and PhD attainment in the US be affected by the number of international PhD students? So it may not be safe to assume that the ratio of PhD degrees versus BA/BS degrees accurately reflects the percentage of the latter in the US going on to PhD study.

[CCtoAlaska]

"about why Swarthmore has a high rate of PhDs in so many fields, and Harvard/Yale in so few compared to selective LACs. "

I saw a convincing argument from a prof at a large research university a little while back who noted that students coming out of small LACs generally have zero conception of how hellish and risky PhD study is because they have not been exposed to graduate TAs and grad students in their classes, so they just go into their PhD programs blind. I thought that made a lot of sense especially based on my own experience at a small LAC known for producing PhDs (a lot of whom, no doubt, had zero notable career prospects requiring a PhD after).

[1NJParent]

Blindly drawing conclusions without understanding underlying rationales, especially with highly limited data, is simply foolish. Many humanity and social sciences majors (even some math majors) at HYP and the like don’t go into work in their own fields upon graduation. Unfairly or not, the names of their schools open doors for them in other fields. Life sciences majors (and some chem majors) are affected by students on the pre-med track. That leaves pretty much only physics majors as fair comparison. The point is that it’s impossible to draw reliable conclusions from such data.

[TheGreyKing]

I do not agree with the idea that non-LACs are more pre-professionally oriented. The Ivies and other similar top universities are as fully devoted to the liberal arts and the “life of the mind” as any small LAC I know.

I also think there is less of a sharp distinction between the top small colleges and the top universities than we collective minds on CC seem to believe. I wonder if anyone even thought of it as a such a big distinction before US News started ranking colleges in separate categories!

My husband, kid and I all chose small colleges at the end of the day, but we all looked at some universities as well, as do many other applicants. We chose by comfort of “fit,” for us, not a conviction that LACs were better per se.

People can have a great education at many different types of colleges. It is just a matter of personal preferences, finances, and “fit.”

[Publisher]

Depends upon several factors including one’s major. A student in a national university business school such as Michigan-Ross or Penn-Wharton has a college experience that is quite different than the liberal arts student at an LAC. Even more so for engineering students (although some LACs also offer engineering). Penn also has a large nursing program.

Research activities at Johns Hopkins & MIT and other major research universities yield significantly different experiences than that of a liberal arts major at an LAC.

Schools of education & schools of agriculture also differ greatly from an LAC liberal arts experience.

Many national universities include a liberal arts school as one of the undergraduate colleges or schools. National Universities are often comprised of 6 or 7 colleges and transferring among them is often difficult as the different schools have different admissions standards & requirements.

While most National Universities offer one the experience of earning a liberal arts degree, few, if any, LACs can offer the breadth & variety of experience found at a National University.

[Publisher]

Attending a National University is also very different from an LAC experience because of the exposure to graduate students as well as for the opportunity to take graduate courses in one’s area of interest.

While there is opportunity for growth at both types of schools, National Universities offer more options.

Students at large national universities need to be more resourceful & more independent as things such as housing are often the student’s responsibility after one’s freshman year.

I can understand one comparing Dartmouth College, Brown or Princeton to an elite LAC experience such as Williams College or Swarthmore, but the further down the US News rankings one goes, the differences become magnified.

National Universities tend to have a much more pre-professional orientation in theory & in reality. Nevertheless, for those desiring a liberal arts education, it can be had at a national university, although it will be a different experience than getting a liberal arts education at an LAC

P.S. For an especially demanding liberal arts education, the University of Michigan LSA Honors is worth consideration.

[Leigh22]

I think the obvious conclusion here is that neither is better or worse - it depends on the student.

[Publisher]

@Leigh22: Agree. I do not think that this was in dispute.

The issues are whether certain personalities are attracted to one type of school or the other, and whether there is a different experience between attending an LAC versus a National University (which arose most recently in this thread).

[ucbalumnus]

@TheGreyKing

I do not agree with the idea that non-LACs are more pre-professionally oriented. The Ivies and other similar top universities are as fully devoted to the liberal arts and the “life of the mind” as any small LAC I know.

Would that apply to Penn, which has a more pre-professional image, or Cornell, with many overtly pre-professional divisions? Or the students at some of them who choose liberal arts majors for pre-professional reasons, like economics for banking or biology for pre-med?

[monydad]

I attended Cornell but a million years ago. Every Cornell Arts & Sciences college graduate I can think of from my time there has an advanced degree. Mostly law degrees and PhDs, a host of masters degrees in various fields, some MDs.

Only the Arts & Sciences College students should be compared to students at LACs that have only arts & sciences majors and programs. But only 29% of Cornell’s students are enrolled in its College of Arts & Sciences, and their destination data is not reported by itself.

The other colleges there do not offer traditional liberal arts college majors and requirements, for the most part. .The people who choose such specialized programs may not have exactly the same objectives, excellences, training, or prospects, in exactly the same proportions, as liberal arts college students have. Most liberal arts college students would not have selected such specialized programs in the alernative.

I personally doubt that the students at Cornell’s College of arts & Sciences , back then at least, were much different than others of equivalent capability who attended LACs, as a blanket matter. In fact a number I know also applied to LACs, and where they finally wound up was partially influenced by where they got in, as well as funding and distance. The better LACs were held in great regard back then.

But all LACs are not the same. Back in the day a guy who applied to U Chicago might also have applied to Swarthmore, Colgate maybe not so much. Probably Cornell Arts & Sciences applicants might have applied to either.

[monydad]

But back then, in the haze of the Vietnam era, investment banking, and business in general was not greatly
admired. These days, it seems more liberal arts college students are interested in fields such as investment banking, consulting and hot-shot computer science. Some schools have better access o those highly-competitive careers than others. More are universities, some are LACs.

It seems reasonable to me that feasibility of entry to such high-remuneration fields, and just jobs period, may impact proportional entry to PhD programs at those schools where this is a factor. And where jobs are not so available, the converse may be true to an extent. I am familiar with one LAC where the biggest on-campus recruiter was the Peace Corps. Others apparently have plenty of recruiting.