<p>^^^LOL, that has to be one of the most irrelevant posts I have seen in a long time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have always wondered about this too. Any University could teach you the material- what you learn as a scientist is no different at Harvard than it is from a Podunk State. The only thing that matters is how that material is presented to you and how you are forced to critically evaluate that material. I still feel that education trumps brand name more. A Williams College graduate would likely not have a problem getting at a prestigious firm since they would no its worth everywhere. And some people in the continents you mentioned have never heard of Northwestern. Infact the vast majority have not. However, I usually advise international students to only go to0 LACs if they plan to go to business/med/law school or plan to do a PhD. If you plan to work straight off it might be more ideal to go to an internationally recognized university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. Most of the foreigners base their perception of a school based on its graduate school reputation than on really how good it is. So some would assume that Vanderbilt is a run of the mill University when it is a highly selective and rigorous school. The fact that it caters for southerners as opposed to a global elite downplays its reputation. People tend to equate reputation and highly regarded to being a good undergraduate school when this only tells you how good the graduate school is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amherst and Williams are ** not ** stronger than JHU, Northwestern, Cornell, or UC Berkeley for that matter. People in Europe/Asia/South America/Africa/Australia rightfully know that. </p>
<p>The undergraduate x graduate education dilemma is a false one that exists mostly in the minds of US students (perhaps due to the LAC culture). In countries like England or Germany, the general perception among students is that the best undergraduate courses are offered by the universities that excel the most in research.</p>
<p>Why is everyone fighting here? Oh… US News rankings is coming out. I’m going to sit this one out again.</p>
<p>
Well, we are not in England or Germany, where their pre-university system and university system are fairly different than ours. But just to try and get to the heart of what you are saying, then, are you claiming that any university where there is PhD level research provides a superior education to any LAC? That would be the natural inference from your statement.</p>
<p>No, I said that “the universities which ** excel ** in research” tend to offer the best undergraduate courses as well. Not all universities that grant PhD’s necessarily excel in research, especially on a major by major basis. </p>
<p>Generally speaking, I am saying though that the top research universities are on average superior to LAC’s as far as undergraduate education is concerned (better faculty, broader course offerings, better resources, research opportunities, etc.). That is particularly true in engineering and natural sciences. LAC’s may be more competitive for humanities majors though.</p>
<p>Just as an additional comment, Germany is precisely the country that pioneered the concept of “research university” back in the 19th century and the idea of research integrated with education is deeply rooted in German post-secundary educational philosophy. English universities on the other hand were comparatively very slow to introduce the PhD as a formal academic degree (I believe Oxford was the first university to do so in England, but only in the 1920’s). Nevertheless, there has always been a tradition of research within the Oxbridge colleges as seen by the likes of Newton and others, long before structured graduate degrees began to be granted. </p>
<p>France may be somewhat of an exception though (I’m not sure), given that some of the elite "grandes </p>
<p>I completely disagree that you can judge the quality of an undergraduate education based on graduate level research. I will grant you that for a small percentage of gifted students that can take advantage of the higher level classes, the cutting edge research, and the multi-million dollar equipment, being at that university which “excels at research” will be a potential advantage. Not always, because at the top 5 Chem PhD program I was in, the grad program was so full that there was little room for undergrads to do meaningful research. They were dishwashers working off their work-study in most cases. But for the vast majority of students, there will be no correlation between these things, and indeed I could argue for a negative correlation. After all, the more the profs excel at research, the more they are focused on managing large research groups, writing research papers, writing grant proposals, sitting in on professional comittees, consulting for companies, etc. Teaching undergrads is the last thing they usually want to be doing. Also, many of the top rated science PhD programs are at the larger state universities, and therefore the classes through at least the first 3 years of requirements will tend to be much larger than at many smaller, but less research oriented schools. I am not sure this is an advantage. Been in both environments, I know of what I speak.</p>
<p>I would also argue there is a flaw in your logic. A university doesn’t have to “excel in research” to have broader course offerings, better resources, and research opportunities. Virtually all PhD granting universities will have those as compared to an LAC. Therefore, at least for engineering and the natural sciences, to use your words, any PhD granting institution must be superior to an LAC for those subjects, if indeed that is what determines a superior undergraduate education in these subjects.</p>
<p>BTW, I didn’t say England and Germany didn’t have research universities, I said their educational system is different. Students enter their universities with more specialization, and indeed most of the universities themselves are more specialized.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was going to state this, but since u have done a good job, I dont want to be redundant. Now for my own statement. I would not argue it out like Fallen chemist but give u data. I agree that German Universities are the kings of research and their model was brilliant. However the LAC model is not so bad afterall:</p>
<p>LACs and Nobel Laureates
Swarthmore: 5
Haverford: 4
Wesleyan: 3
Amherst: 4
Oberlin: 3
Hamilton: 2
Wellesley, Grinnel, Williams, Macalester, college of holy cross: 1</p>
<p>UK University (Including Postgrad and undegrad)
UCL: 6
KCL: 3
Imperial: 3
Edinburgh: 2
LSE:4
Manchester: 8 </p>
<p>I neglected Oxbridge (duh!!!)</p>
<p>So what were you saying about LACs???</p>
<p>Bruno, the science undergrads at Williams, in almost every case for those who choose a research path (and without any doubt on a per capita basis), engage in far more meaningful, substantial on-campus science research (in the summers and during the school year) than the universities you mentioned. It isn’t even a close call. Unless you are confident you will be one of the the top 1-2 undergrads in any given department in whatever large university you attend, if conducting meaningful research as an undergrad is your goal, the opportunities are a top small liberal arts school like Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore are FAR better than at virtually any large university (excluding MIT and Caltech). And again, it’s not even close. The grad school placement rates of science students at Williams, etc., not to mention NSF fellowships awarded on a per-capita basis, bear this out: they do exceptionally well in terms of gaining admission to the very top Phd programs in every single science field, and getting prestigious fellowships and grads as an undergrad. If you are at, say, Berkeley, you will ZERO access to the kinds of research opportunities you can get at Williams. Heck, you are hard-pressed to get meaningful access even to your undergrad professor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those Nobel prizes were (most likely) not awarded by research done in the LAC’s themselves, but rather by research LAC graduates did elsewhere. Most of them most likely got their PhD’s and moved on to become faculty members at major research universities.</p>
<p>I don’t deny though that top LAC’s are highly selective and recruit gifted students (the type of students who would have the potential to earn PhD’s or even Nobel prizes in the future).</p>
<p>I would point out some of these nobels would have been in peace which has nothing to do with research- but anyways u get the point</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>but thats the point isn’t it? The students despite being smaller in numbers than several research universities have excelled in research. Their undergraduate backgrounds enabled them to perform outstanding work at the doctoral level.</p>
<p>So I pose the question again- what does going to a major research university have to do with undergraduate education?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you substantiate your claim ? Based on what criteria do you say that ?</p>
<p>Right. It isn’t as if Princeton students are earning Nobels for the work they perform at Princeton, either. But the more relevant metric is looking at, per capita, NSF fellowships awarded and admission to top graduate programs. Those status demonstrate that science graduates of the top liberal arts schools are far more successful, on a per capita basis, than the graduates of virtually any university in the country, and are competitive with the top Ivies in this regard. They absolutely crush the likes of Cornell, NW, and Berkeley in this regard.</p>
<p>Williams ranks first in the COUNTRY among all colleges and universities for summer science research opportunities for undergrads, Bruno:</p>
<p>[::</a> Williams College :
Science and Mathematics Research](<a href=“http://admission.williams.edu/bigpicture/difference/research]::”>http://admission.williams.edu/bigpicture/difference/research)</p>
<p>Anyone who did their undergraduate education in the US would know that LACs are exceptional for studying the hard sciences. Only those who know about universities based on perception would make claims otherwise. My friends at LACs where publishing papers in science and math journals in their sophomore/junior years.</p>
<p>All of which is to say, as was my point, that trying to “rank” an undergraduate education by correlation with the quality of their grad school is completely off base. As I said, I won’t argue that there are not cases where having access to the resources of a dynamic, cutting edge research environment won’t lead to some experiences that one might not get elsewhere. However, the number of students this applies to is small enough that I don’t think it is appropriate to make it the deciding factor.</p>
<p>Ephman, I am not disputing what you say about WIlliams in the least. However, I would like to see some citations of what they have published in, let’s say, chemistry since I am more knowledgable in that area than others. In any case, I think the main point is that they do get experience in research rather than “canned” labs. If they choose to go on to grad school, they will have more research than they probably imagined, lol. Also, you are totally right about the per capita numbers that go on to grad school from the LAC’s, but that is more due to the type of student that goes to an LAC to begin with. I think a more relevant number would be the number of, let’s say, chem majors that go on to grad school from each environment. I bet the LAC’s still win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>pizza girl, there is such a thing as alumni network, don’t you know that? Outside of America, alumni network is playing a role in business, employment or any social interaction or opportunities. Outside of America, having graduated from a prestigious American school is more beneficial than attending schools you deemed “quality schools”.</p>
<p>Great, then USNWR should only put the rankings in their foreign editions. No problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then I guess it’s of utmost importance that you attend the school that impresses the most people. As you said yourself at one point, it makes you feel good when the drycleaner recognizes the school on your sweatshirt. Me, I’m fine with high quality, and whether or not everyone-and-his-brother “recognizes” that quality is of little importance to me. I much prefer the attitude of quiet sophistication and recognition only by the cognoscenti than the desperate “so-do-you-like-me? am-I-good-enough-for-you?” attitude some of you espouse.</p>