<p>I don’t see the point of reporting the percentage of all students who go on to get a PhD. How are my chances at getting a PhD hurt because my school also sends people to med school, or has people who want to get an MBA, or has engineers who would rather go into industry than academia, or has people whose career goals only require a masters, etc etc. All it’s really doing is pointing out the obvious fact that LACs specialize in fields where continuing on to get a PhD is a common option.</p>
<p>bo, I see, but I think we don’t have such detailed data available, so the best we can do (which is not very good) is to extrapolate from schools known to produce a <em>lot</em> of future PhDs; only <em>perhaps</em> do such schools make it easier to get into <em>top</em> grad programs.</p>
<p>dilksy, same thing, it’s just a possible loose association, just one way to identify one kind of quality undergrad preparation, and <em>maybe</em> it applies to other aspects, maybe not.</p>
<p>
The schools that produce a large amount of PhDs are the schools that are going to make it easier on undergraduates to get in to a doctoral program, which sort of makes this a revolving door thing. The benefit of high PhD productivity numbers is that there is a well-defined network of former students in academia, and the reference portion of the graduate application is incredibly important.</p>
<p>More importantly than that, if a school graduates a large amount of future PhDs from one program (or in the case of most of these schools several), then you have to assume the quality of the program is at such a level where these kids aren’t going to be going to bad programs for their doctorates. No one is going to be ranked, say, #3 in chemistry PhD productivity because their chemistry program sucks.</p>
<p>Quite frankly it’s not that hard to understand that a school that historically has a strong history of producing future doctoral students is sending those students to quality institutions, because it’s not exactly like a large majority of the people graduating from top 30 schools are looking to get their PhD at ITT Tech. If students from X school are continually admitted to graduate programs based on common sense you’d have to feel that the graduate programs they’re getting into aren’t in Bosnia.
I’d personally like to see a ranking of PhD + MD + JD, because MBA admission generally happens (1) later in a persons life (so you can’t really extrapolate that “oh, this school prepared them for an MBA and made it easier for them to get into a program”), (2) isn’t really based on the undergraduate track record.</p>
<p>Theoretically you could take the biological sciences and chemistry PhD productivity numbers to try and get a good idea of maybe how prevalent some of these schools could be in the med school process, but I think it’s a little bit of a reach.</p>
<p>As for how your chances are hurt, I’m not sure if they are, but if school X is ranked in the top ten in the survey of earned doctorates and school Y isn’t in the top fifty, I’ve got to imagine school X either does a better job of preparing students for future doctoral studies at the highest level, has a better reputation in academia or has a stronger alumni network in academia (which is essentially a track to getting into a good doctoral program anyway. nepotism = bad, but it’s prevalent in everything from academia to business).</p>
<p>“All it’s really doing is pointing out the obvious fact that LACs specialize in fields where continuing on to get a PhD is a common option.”</p>
<p>This statement is problematic in that it seeks to simultaneously single out (and depending on how it’s meant denigrate) LACs while ignoring what these lists are.</p>
<p>The problem with singling out LACs, of course, is that essentially the top private schools in the country are always reflected in these lists. CIT, MIT, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Rice–elite private research universities and Ivies, basically. The strongest LACs in the Midwest, Northeast and on the West Coast. So, the best schools in the country with the lower student:teacher ratios in general. It’s not hard to imagine why it’s easier to get into the Harvard econ program from Swarthmore or Pomona, or MIT or Rice, than it is from NC State.</p>
<p>The only reason the top state schools aren’t on this list (and even if they were, there are only 5-10 state schools I think anyone could consider in a class with the schools listed in the last paragraph) is because they not only have a larger student body but they have commitments to the state they are in to take a certain amount of students, thus lowering the bar in terms of what it takes to gain admission. It’s not surprising most of those students aren’t going to continue their education, and while it doesn’t make the school any worse (in rankings based on GPAs/SAT scores in hs like the US News crap is does, and it certainly makes classes more crowded) it basically makes it impossible for any very large state school to get on a list that is essentially ranking efficiency.</p>
<p>I would rather go to school for my undergraduate studies that actually focuses on undergraduates. Then go to a top graduate school that focuses on graduates. </p>
<p>That’s the philosophy of most students at LACs at least.</p>
<p>I’d say the list is measuring selectiveness and school size more than PhD preparation. If you’re mainly taking in the best, and most highly motivated students who are planning on pursuing a PhD, you’d have to suck pretty hard as a school to not have them make it to the next level. They’d get a PhD no matter where they went, but that doesn’t mean the school did particularly much to prepare them.</p>
<p>You stress how important it is to have a large amount of alumni connections, but the list talks about percentages, not numbers. It’s very likely you’ll be able to have more connections at a larger institution, even if these people don’t make up as large of a percentage of the student body. I don’t see how you’d be better off connections-wise at a place that sends 4/10 students in your field to get a PhD each year, as opposed to a larger school that sends maybe 20/100. The percentage is twice as high, but you’re 5 times behind in connections.</p>
<p>"I would rather go to school for my undergraduate studies that actually focuses on undergraduates. Then go to a top graduate school that focuses on graduates.</p>
<p>That’s the philosophy of most students at LACs at least."</p>
<p>It depends on the field. If you’re in a field that needs some kind of research experience, most of the best professors (and resources) are likely to be at places that have a graduate program. Also, places with a graduate school will have a wider variety of classes for you to take. After my freshmen year, basically all my classes have been with a few “advanced” undergrads and PhD candidates. There’s at most one class I’m taking right now that you’d be able to find at any LAC. But for some things (I’d say mainly humanities), you’d probably be better off at a LAC where the school focuses more on undergraduate education.</p>
<p>
Then why are they choosing those schools? This is an interesting argument.</p>
<p>Let’s assume the path for a PhD is working like this:
Students who are likely to get a postgraduate degree (high GPA, strong academic interests, enterprising, intelligent) -> The institutions on these lists -> Graduate school.</p>
<p>So the question from me, going off what you’ve said, would be why they’re choosing these schools? Presumably there’s a reason. Presumably the quality of education is better, or the guidance and preparation is better, or there are closer teacher relationships that give you better recommendations–or these intelligent students, these “best, and most highly motivated students who are planning on pursuing a PhD” are choosing to attend these schools because… They don’t know what they’re doing? So, while you can say these students are going to get a PhD no matter what, and as long as the school doesn’t completely suck these kids will be fine–they’re still going into academia and they must have reason for going to these schools that have such a high preponderance of their former students in graduate school.</p>
<p>Let’s be totally honest here, and just say it. Going to an Ivy, a top LAC or an elite, private research university is a better pathway to getting a doctorate than going to the University of Florida, and it’s probably a better pathway than most of the great state schools. Nothing to do with job opportunities, or the overall quality of education, or the alumni network, or the study-abroad opportunities, or the name recognition. Getting a doctorate. Even I’m getting tired of talking in circles–this is what it is. All of these schools have a better student:teacher ratio, which seems to correlate to most of these statistics. A LAC has a sole focus on undergraduate education, a plethora of research opportunities for undergraduates and better one-on-one guidance and tutelage. An Ivy has more prestige, oftentimes great graduate schools of their own and a strong network in academia. Research universities are… Research universities, I mean, that’s what they’re built for. Research. You don’t go to some super selective, private, rich research university because you don’t want to take part in research–and research is kind of what you do as doctoral student. All these things are bonuses for academia. These schools, essentially, are almost preconfigured for making it easy to do research and get into graduate school.</p>
<p>Of course, there are kids from UCB, UW, UNC-CH, UM and UT-A that are going to get doctorates–probably close to the percentages of the rest of these schools, just hurt by the fact they have more students and it’s easier to get in to those schools–but I have no doubt that being at one of the three types of schools listed in all these rankings (small private research, Ivy, top tier LAC) would make the life of those students easier. Preponderance of graduates in a field correlates to greater opportunities in that field for students of the school who sent the graduates. This is not rocket science.</p>
<p>All this comes back to is the best schools, minus the great state schools. If we factor the great state schools back into the equation, we’re left with the top 20 universities and the top 10 LACs. This is what everything else comes back to. Some people seem to have a problem with LACs, I don’t why and they’re morons. Some people have a problem with big state schools, I don’t know why and they’re morons. This should surprise absolutely no one. The great schools produce great students (or they come in great, chicken/egg argument is a waste of time) who go into business, or get doctorates, or go to professional schools, or work with nonprofits. All this comes back to the OP who wanted to feel like he can get into a top graduate school from a top LAC. He can. He can get into a top graduate school from any top school–Ivy, state, LAC or private research. I posted the statistics because they show how strong LACs are so he’d feel better about it in general.
You are making the assumption that the difference is 40% to 20%. From everything I’ve seen, it’s closer to 11/40 and 9/100.</p>
<p>“It depends on the field. If you’re in a field that needs some kind of research experience, most of the best professors (and resources) are likely to be at places that have a graduate program. Also, places with a graduate school will have a wider variety of classes for you to take. After my freshmen year, basically all my classes have been with a few “advanced” undergrads and PhD candidates. There’s at most one class I’m taking right now that you’d be able to find at any LAC. But for some things (I’d say mainly humanities), you’d probably be better off at a LAC where the school focuses more on undergraduate education.”</p>
<p>All I have to say for this is exactly what I say for every time this point comes up. I direct you to the link of my previous post: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/464945-sciences-lacs.html#post1059835440[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/464945-sciences-lacs.html#post1059835440</a></p>