What is the real point of LAC?

Firecube2426 · August 27, 2008, 11:25pm

Hi I’ve been asking this question many times but seem dissatisfied with the past answers so I hope a few of your aren’t annoyed.

Besides in terms of small class sizes and tuition, how is the EDUCATION different from other public and private universities? I mean does someone obtaining an education from a LAC in say engineering have a different mindset & skills than say if someone obtained an engineering degree at a university. It’s just that I keep hearing that LACs make a person “more well rounded” and “develop critical thinking” than big colleges. I don’t understand how it works.

kwu · August 27, 2008, 11:32pm

You become markedly better able to express yourself in speech and writing.
More analytical and perceptive, I’d say.
Having classes in a small and intimate environment gives you the opportunity to have genuinely deep, involved, and meaningful discussions with your classmates.
A larger proportion of students at LACs are intellectually passionate and curious.
There are less career-oriented and pre-professional people.

“Critical thinking” is an important life skill. Have you ever invested an extensive amount of time and effort to really think about something critically?

If one is interested in pursuing a career in engineering, one should not attend a LAC. It’s as simple as that–bad example.

Keilexandra · August 27, 2008, 11:54pm

^ Not necessarily true, about engineering. For instance, Swarthmore offers an engineering degree and I’m pretty sure their grads go on to successful careers. Smith also offers engineering… there are others that I can’t think of off the top of my head.

DunninLA · August 28, 2008, 12:12am

what kwu said (in the first 2 paragraphs).

to add, I have noticed that I carry with me hundreds of untested opinions about all aspects of life: religion, politics, history, psychology, etc.

Here’s the problem – I hear a lecture, and I think I know what the lecturer meant… but unless I engage that lecturer in conversation, they will never have the opportunity to verify that I indeed understood what they meant me to understand.

I read an article, or book, and the same thing.

My interpretation is almost never challenged, examined, or verified by the source.

I think it is almost impossible to truly understand others’ thoughts without dialogue. Most of the time I will interpret their words differently than they intend them to be.

This inherent ambiguity in the intented meaning of words is the reason small classrooms are vital in learning. In these classroom discussions people hone in on exactly what the professor and other students MEAN when they use words.

Many philosophers spend the bulk of their career coining words and phrases, then spending thousands of pages trying to explain what those words and phrases mean!

ferryboat10 · August 28, 2008, 1:07am

The culture. Because they’re small, they offer a slightly different experience. This results in…

Small class size. Close attention by professors, advisers and administrators. Often results in seminars, unique study opportunities and other educational opportunities.

Selectivity. They attract students serious about their education and wanting to be at the school. And they select the best of the bunch. Many students go onto the great things. (Some others work in Starbucks and hostels)

Limited program options (although not always). A focus on liberal arts programs. Few pre-professional programs. Few, if any, graduate programs.

interesteddad · August 28, 2008, 1:22am

The real point of a good LAC is to provide the best possible highly interactive undergraduate education. Everything an LAC does is focused on the undergraduate education. It’s a boutique store, not a shopping mall.

taxguy · August 28, 2008, 8:50am

I tent to agree with what Interesteddad said in post 6. LACs tend to focus more on undergraduate education and do it well. They also focus on good writing skills, good reading skills and critical reading skills. You also generally get smaller classes and much more student-professor interaction. Thus, with all these great benefits, the better question is:“What the drawbacks to a LAC?”

<ol>
<li>First, they are usually very small insular schools. Everyone knows every one’s business. Think of going to a college that is half the size of your high school!</li>
<li>Although they have majors, the choices are usually a lot more limited than that found in a major university. You don’t ordinarily get the same number of courses for each major.</li>
</ol>

In addition, you usually have a Lot less choices among majors. In a typical LAC, you might have 20 or even 30 major choices. At a major university, you might have over one-hundred choices of majors and minors.This is a big difference.

Thus, there are some programs that you either can’t get at a LAC or, if available, they tend to be very spartan in their offerings. This becomes particularly true with specialized programs such as accounting, digital design, graphic design, et. al.

<ol>
<li>Although there are research opportunities in some LACS, generally, the research going on is much greater than that of a major university with graduate programs. Thus, the research facilities can be both better and more plentiful at major universities.</li>
<li>Having less courses in each major, you would have less choices of professors. For example, physics might only have a handfull of faculty at a LAC,while a major university might have a whole list of faculty.</li>
<li>Usually the big named faculty teach at major universities.</li>
<li>With some notable exceptions, LACs aren’t as well known among most people and employers. Lets face it: they have a LOT less alumni than schools like Penn State and Michigan. Alumni tend to hire from their respective schools.</li>
<li>Although most LACs have gorgeous facilities, the amount and nature of the facilities tend to be rather spartan. You don’t generally have the same amount or quality of work out facilites, gyms, or even library offerings as that of a major university. </li>
</ol>

There maybe other differences that I haven’t had time to think about.

interesteddad · August 28, 2008, 10:20am

The flip side is that you go to a school where you don’t live in a high-rise dorm, where students know each other’s names, and where professors know you by name. The flip side is a college where you are invited to serve on the hiring committee for new faculty, have dinner at the Dean’s house, and getting professor reqs for jobs is no problem.

You only take 32 courses as an undergrad (on average), with 10 to 12 in your major. So, unless you are studying some arcane niche ("French History frin 1622 - 1624), does it really matter. The point of a college education, at least a liberal arts education, is the interaction with professors – the feedback on oral and written presentations, the one-on-one mentorship. Beyond the basic core courses in each department, the actual course titles don’t much matter. At many liberal arts colleges, students end up taking individual one-on-one our small seminar courses based on topics of the students and professors choosing – a hot topic in the field, or whatever.

<ol>
<li>Having less courses in each major, you would have less choices of professors. For example, physics might only have a handfull of faculty at a LAC,while a major university might have a whole list of faculty.

[/quote]
</li>
</ol>

This is true. Instead of hundreds of professors who don’t even know you exist, let alone know your name, you will become very close to a small number of professors in your department. Quite possibly on a first name basis.

You would need to look at this on a per capita basis. For example, there is a paid summer research position for one out of every two undergrad science majors at Swarthmore College.

“Big name” colllege professors? Give me a break. It’s not like Tom Brady or Britney Spears are teaching college.

That’s true, but there are also a lot more Penn State alumni trying to beat the bushes for jobs. In fact, the number of alumni and the number of students looking to be hired by alumni networks is proportional and essentially the same for all colleges. An intereting thing, an employer who graduated from any top LAC is likely to hire a graduate of any top LAC for a suitable position.

Yes, but the question is can you get into the facilities? For example, will the large university give you a key to the music practice rooms with the Steinway pianos or are those reserved for the music majors?

taxguy · August 28, 2008, 10:26am

I was in a hurry when I wrote post number 7 and wanted to add one last point.

LACS are for kids that want a strong “overall” education. You probably won’t get the same in-depth training in one major that you would get at a non-LAC, which is why many LAC kids go on to grad schools. Being a "jack of all trades, master of none,"somewhat applies to the LAC education.

I would think that the bottom line is that if you will definitely go to either grad school or professional school, a LAC might be a wise choice as LONG as you want a "general "major found in must schools ( such as English, Math, History, etc. and are willing to put up with a host of general education requirements.

If you want a more specialized major, or want a lot of choices in majors or want to develeop a very strong competance in one or two majors or want a lot of research opportunities, you might be better off with larger university.

In response to Interesteddad’s post number 8, I was responding to LACS in general and not to the top 5 LACS such as Haverford or Swathmore. Yes, they tend to have a LOT more money and more of most things. However, I still stand by what I said regarding LACs in general.

Also, at all of the colleges that my kids attended, they took more than 32 courses. usually they averaged at least 40 courses. Thus, if you can take 15-20 in your major, you can develop a real specialty. LACS tend to require a lot of gen eds and courses outside of your major.

By the way, I attended a state university where kids could play on the Steinway piano located in the student union! However, you make a good point, Interesteddad, many times larger universities limit facilities to certain majors. Thus, it might be hard to take music lessons at a large univeristy with a conservatory IF you are not a music major.

Also, having a small number of faculty in a major at LACS has pros and cons. AS Interesteddad noted, you can get them to know you personally, However, if you don’t like some of the faculty, you will be stuck with them and may not have choices to take courses with other faculty at LACs.

Also, I want to be clear: I am NOT knocking LACs. They just have a different set of advantages and disadvantages over that of a larger university.

Keilexandra · August 28, 2008, 11:20am

I disagree on the point re: general education requirements–many LACs focus on them, true, but in my experience, the state Us have MORE extensive requirements. A flexible curriculum is one of the criteria in my own college search, and my in-state safety scores the worst.

xiggi · August 28, 2008, 11:35am

Yes, you should avoid a LAC such as Harvey Mudd for engineering. After all, who could be remotely interested in the school that is the closest rival to Caltech and has the highest SAT among all colleges.

Obviously, it is so much better to attend a public university where every warm body that applies gets accepted and graduates with honors.

Consolation · August 28, 2008, 12:08pm

Much of what taxguy says could be summed up by saying that LACs focus on education not training. If your sole interest in going to college is to obtain a job credential, then by all means avoid LACs. Actually, if that is your interest you should probably avoid all of the Ivies, except perhaps Cornell and Penn, and any intellectually-inclined university, such as the University of Chicago.

To illustrate the difference another way, you will not find a major in “business administration” or “accounting” at most top LACs or the Ivies, or at places like the University of Chicago. You will, however, find a major in economics. Grads of these schools do not have any problem being recruited into leading financial institutions and the like. But I would speculate that they may be less likely than business administration grads from regional universities to be hired into jobs in local industry. A speculative generalization on my part, but I would say from the experience of those I know that Goldman Sachs is more likely to be interested in a Williams economics grad than a Michigan State business administration grad, while the reverse might be true for Ford.

BTW, the facilities of top LACs are mindbogglingly plush these days.

taxguy · August 28, 2008, 12:24pm

Consulation, again, I am NOT knocking LACS. Yes, a firm like Goldman Sachs would recruit from Williams over Michigan State economics majors. However, I am not sure that this is true for the lessor LACs vs. Michigan State.

Just so that you may understand my bias:I am a writer. I certainly feel that having strong liberal arts,especially in courses that emphasize critical reading and writing, are crucial. However, I have also seen many liberal arts majors who specialize in “biggie sizing drinks” or taking jobs that they could have had without a college degree. Thus, I am a believer in also having a “vocationally oriented” major for good job possibilities unless the kid will be going to a professional school such as medical school, law school etc.

I certainly won’t say that LACs, in general, won’t accomplish both requirements, because schools like Harvey Mudd would certainly meet my goals,but I don’t think that this would be true for many majors at LACS and at other universities as well.

Also, most LACs are private schools. They may have some “mindbogglingly” plush facilities,but they also have some “mindboggingly” plush price tags on tuition!

M_s_Mom · August 28, 2008, 12:27pm

A few other points about LACs:

1) Because they are already small, many do not encourage frats and the associated culture. There are LACs with strong frat presence, but this is the exception in the top 20-this can be a pro or con depending on your perspective. LACs don’t need frats, the way large schools often do, to create managable social sub-groupings.

2) Division I athletics are probably not going to dominate the culture: You can participate in lots of athletics at LACs, but if rooting for a nationally known football team is part of the experience you crave, you probably won’t get it at a LAC.

3) The fit of the school’s culture matters more at a LAC because they are small, often more isolated, and have a more pronounced ‘feel.’ If you don’t fit, you will probably know it, even if you carve a niche for yourself socially. At a large public university or state school, there are so many sub-groups that you don’t have to worry as much about finding your niche-but it may take a while to find it in a bigger place.

4) Financial aid and merit aid can be especially generous at a LAC that is seeking to increase its diversity-always an administrtive concern when a school is smaller and more isolated.

As above, LACs make sense for some people and not others. There should be no value judgement associated with choosing one over the other: The only value judgement I make is whether the student did his/her homework in order to make an informed decision.

Bourne · August 28, 2008, 12:41pm

As compared to what? Attending a different school altogether? Or attending a school where you wouldnt receive as much “personal” attention. This can be said of any college/university.

Once again? As compared to what? What exactly is the comparison here?

So what about schools like Uchicago…

Is this once again a characteristic that is only nurtured at LAC’s?

These are all extremely general statements. Some have a factual basis, some don’t.

kwu · August 28, 2008, 12:55pm

FFS, spare me, I forgot about HMC.

“Personal attention” is important. Receiving extensive and thorough feedback from professors on every piece of writing, and having them criticized for their faults in a classroom of no more than about a dozen people is important.

Stop getting your panties in a bunch: I’m not making comparisons, only observations. I do not want to compare with you, whatever it is that you want to compare.

Again, pardon. There are a countable number of universities like UChicago that embody and embrace this sort of mentality. Perhaps Brown and Dartmouth too, due to their open curriculum and unique plan, respectively.

Of course not. It depends entirely on the curriculum one wishes to pursue. I would say there are more opportunities to exercise this skill at LACs.

Firecube2426 · August 28, 2008, 2:36pm

Taxguy said: "LACS are for kids that want a strong “overall” education. You probably won’t get the same in-depth training in one major that you would get at a non-LAC, which is why many LAC kids go on to grad schools. Being a "jack of all trades, master of none,“somewhat applies to the LAC education.”

Does everything you say only apply to kids who go to LAC and pursue ONLY a LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION not preprofessional or technical?

Bourne · August 28, 2008, 2:47pm

Lol. Can this not be found at a number of different universities?

I meant as compared to what general type of school – Publics?? Maybe. Top Privates? Not so much.

The problem is, you speak of LAC’s as if this is the only place one can find this sort of intellectual/nurturing atmosphere. There is no monopoly on intellectualism/engagement.

bclintonk · August 28, 2008, 4:49pm

I think more than anything it’s a matter of personal preference. Some people like small and intimate. They choose LACs. Some prefer big, complex, broad, and deep. They choose bigger schools.

I’m a research university kind of guy: attended three, taught at three, some public, some private, all great institutions, and loved every minute of it both as student and as faculty. My D is an LAC kind of gal: she likes the idea of knowing a large fraction of the faculty and a large fraction of the students in a smaller, closer-knit setting.

IMO, it’s possible to get a great education at either. I profoundly disagree with those who say an LAC will give you better undergrad teaching, more discussion, more feedback on your writing, better developed analytical skills, etc. At a research university whether you get those things may depend partly on the school, but it depends even more on what you end up studying, and most of all what opportunities you search out. You can be anonymous and stick to large classes at a big school if you so choose; or you can search out the most challenging classes and the most interesting professors—many of them the very top people in their fields, the cutting-edge producers of new knowledge—and develop relationships with them as close as any you’ll find at an LAC. I know. I did it, and I’m certainly not unique in that regard.

I do think LAC grads often tend to emerge more as generalists, with a strong grounding in a wide range of fields, but (due to curricular limitations) often not quite as much depth or breadth in their major field as graduates of top research universities. As a consequence, I think LAC grads sometimes have a little more ground to make up in their chosen field in grad school; but they compensate by having in some cases a more diverse set of intellectual tools in their toolkit. So that’s a difference, but it doesn’t point to one or the other model as “better.” Again, it’s a matter of personal preference.

Consolation · August 28, 2008, 6:04pm

<<Taxguy said: "LACS are for kids that want a strong “overall” education. You probably won’t get the same in-depth training in one major that you would get at a non-LAC, which is why many LAC kids go on to grad schools. Being a "jack of all trades, master of none,"somewhat applies to the LAC education.

Does everything you say only apply to kids who go to LAC and pursue ONLY a LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION not preprofessional or technical?>>

What do you mean “only”? What do mean by “pre-professional”? Law? You can major in anything and go to law school. You can major in anything and go to med school. You can major in anything and go to business school. There is also such a thing as good old graduate school in an academic field. Top LACs and universities don’t have pseudo-majors called “pre-law” or “pre-med” or “pre-MBA.”

It also depends what you mean by “technical.” All of the physical sciences fall within the liberal arts. If you are talking about engineering, a minority of LACs–Swarthmore, for example–have engineering programs of various kinds. Some also have 3-2 programs with technical schools. (It seems to be news to some people that “engineering” isn’t monolithic and there is a difference between chemical engineering, civil engineering, and aerospace engineering, just to name a few.) IMHO Harvey Mudd isn’t really a LAC any more than Cal Tech or Olin is. All are technical schools. I wouldn’t consider undergraduate business schools to really be LACs either. (Babson, Bentley, et al.) Not-a-university does not equal LAC. And just to confuse things, most top universities consider that their undergraduates receive a “liberal arts education.”

Re depth/breadth of LAC preparation: it depends on the field. In the humanities, I think that LAC preparation is at least the equal of university preparation and often superior. (Of course, it depends which schools one is talking about.)

What is the real point of LAC?

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US