think they've heard of...?

<p>Do you think the UT Austin Pharm Program has heard of Middlebury College?</p>

<p>Probably, yes.</p>

<p>Middlebury is an outstanding school. People in academia will have heard of it.</p>

<p>yes, without a doubt.</p>

<p>where's middle bury?</p>

<p>LAC in Vermont</p>

<p>where I live in TX, no one has heard of it, which is why I guess I'm slightly worried</p>

<p>I live on the west coast, I definitely never heard of it. But just because people don't "know" about it, the academic quality of the school should't be hurt.</p>

<p>I'm from Houston, I've heard of it.</p>

<p>Well, I've heard of it, but I'm in NYC, so it's almost local :) That said, I think admissions comittees, who scour hundreds or thousands of apps a year will have heard of a broader range of schools than your Average Joe.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, younger members, that folks who do grad school and professional school admissions make a career out of knowing who is who in higher ed. That's a big part of their job, and is not so tough to do anyway. </p>

<p>If nothing else, they can keep a copy of USNWR near their desk. :)</p>

<p>Seriously, the universe of selective colleges is perhaps at most 200? They probably know all of these by memory. </p>

<p>It is the kids that graduate from a poorly known local university, public or private, that are at a disadvantage. Examples: Trinity in DC; Governor's State in Illinois. </p>

<p>But even folks from poorly known colleges can cut through the fog with good recs. </p>

<p>So chill out....</p>

<p>Yeah seriously, newsmassdad is right. If you're in top 100 LAC, people will have heard of your school, especially those who are educated... </p>

<p>Nice sarcasm, jmilton90.</p>

<p>Ticklemepink, was jmilton being sarcastic? Like uefastation, I haven't heard of it, and I consider myself educated. Why would a researcher need or want to be familiar with all of the top 100 LACs? If there isn't much (any?) research going on there in my field, then what good does it do me to be familiar with LACs? Sorry, but I'm not going to memorize a list of schools just so that I can respect people's background in literature and art history when I meet them at cocktail parties.</p>


<p>You obviously don't know much about higher education, where researchers are constantly moving about giving seminars, finding jobs for their grad students, recruiting new grad students, following the trends in education and such. </p>

<p>To put it another way, if a researcher is on the departmental admissions committee, it is his or her job to know this stuff. The ones that hide under a rock (like some posters...never mind...) would never be trusted with such an important task. </p>

<p>Keep in mind too, that the decent grad programs have faculty that trained all over the country. Just take a look at the faculty in the pharm program from UT Austin: From UC Santa Barbara to Rutgers, with quite a few from Purdue.</p>

<p>I agree with snowcapk completely. I have never heard of Middlebury, but that doesn't mean I'm not educated about colleges.</p>

<p>I wouldn't expect a European History adcom member to have heard of Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. Likewise, I wouldn't expect your everyday non-adcom biomedical scientist to have heard of a school that offers little to nothing in scientific research (no offense glucose101).</p>

<p>newmassdad, a professor in a specific field (say biomedical sciences) would not be looking to give a seminar or find a job for their grad students at a place where it is relatively unknown in said field.</p>


<p>You know not of what you speak. You may not expect a euro hist adcom member to know Rose-Hulman, but I bet most do. That is because these schools are well known among educated folks. And Rose Hulman does happen to hire a few liberal arts types (to give those engineers some background for cocktail chat? who knows?) so these profs may well know of the place.</p>

<p>It is fr the same reason that biomedical researchers often know about liberal arts colleges that have weak science programs. After all, where do you think they place their weak grads? (just kidding..)</p>

<p>Funny we keep using middlebury as an example. What is more likely to go on is that decent southern schools are not well known up north, so those kids could be at a disadvantage. The southern schools all know the decent places up north, because so many faculty trained up north. </p>

<p>If you want to add data to the discussion instead of plain speculation, just go to a departmental website at a grad school of interest and see where the faculty came from. Then make the bold assumption that they came out from the lab once in a while while in grad school and read a newspaper that just happened to mention the other colleges in the area. </p>

<p>I'll bow out of this discussion, since you folks seem pretty set on generalizing your rather limited knowledge of higher ed to all higher ed faculty nationwide. You are entitled to do this, but I don't know why you would. You are only showing your own provincialism.</p>

<p>Purdue, Rutgers, UT Austin and UC Santa Barbara are research universities. I'm sure that the faculty at Middlebury are involved in research at some level, but it's not a name I've seen recently in Science, Development, or Cell. There is nary an NAS member on the entire Middlebury faculty. At schools where teaching is the primary focus, which I assume is the case for Middlebury because I haven't seen that name in the journals I read, the professors are less likely to be doing research that will catch the attention of profs and students at top-tier research universities. Meanwhile, professors and students at UT Austin, Purdue, Rutgers, and other research institutions are churning out quality publications and learning each other's names.</p>

<p>The point is: there are plenty of "educated" people, professors included, who have not heard of Middlebury because they are researchers and Middlebury is not a research school. Maybe someone on a pharm school admissions committee should be required to know which schools provide good liberal arts educations, but researchers, even grad school adcomm members, do not need to know that information. (A liberal arts education is not the best way to prepare for graduate school in the sciences: to be competitive in grad school admissions, applicants need in-depth coursework in their field and research experience with a prominent adviser, and these are not characteristic of a liberal arts education.)</p>

<p>The idea that all "educated" people will have heard of the Top 100 LACs is B.S.</p>

<p>Snowcapk- Go figure. You're a biologist from Caltech, totally immersed in your research school and lab.</p>

<p>Newsmassdad is right- if you're going to be in higher ed, you'll want to know where the strong and weak biology programs are so you know what to expect of the applicants. There will be people applying to MIT, Stanford, Harvard, and the like from LACs too. I know of several students in my class who applied to PhD programs in biology and they've gotten excellent acceptances including Cornell and WUSTL.</p>

<p>You shouldn't discount LACs, which it sounds like you are, because they actually broaden these students' minds beyond the lab. So you'll have applicants from these places who can hold a decent conversation about something besides biology and chemistry and I'm talking about humanities. And they add something to the class!</p>

<p>You might not know but I will tell you since you're going to some pretty impressive schools, you might want to at least glance over the list of top 100 LACs so you don't look blanked out when you meet someone from say... Middlebury :p And I will say it is true that unless the LAC has a lot of money for the sciences that students are not ready to apply directly to PhD after undergrad but fortunately, many do research for several years to pick up their experience and make informed decisions about applying to PhD programs. And they're perfectly fine with that because they're actually getting paid.</p>

<p>uh no really. i 've never heard of it.. I'm an engineering grad student on the west coast. So I guess that might explain it. I thought it was a UK school or something.</p>

<p>oh and no one here is discounting LACs. we're just honestly saying, as grad students from large research unis, that wesimply haven't heard of Middle bury. It might be a great school, more to OP.</p>

<p>newmassdad is completely correct here.</p>

<p>My colleagues in the sciences (ESPECIALLY if they are a DGS) darn well know the top LACs. Many of them went to top LACs themselves. Has no one here ever heard of the amazing research opportunities available to science majors at LACs? Good grief.</p>

<p>Most sincerely,
A Humanities DGS who has <em>even</em> heard of Rose-Hulman (sarcasm)</p>