What would I miss if I didn't go to a good LAC?

College Search & Lists
21

<p>^ But a lot depends on the particular school. I don’t think upper-level courses of 150-200 are very common at all at Michigan, for example, even in popular majors like poli sci. I could be wrong, though; it’s been a while since I went there. </p>

<p>And I’d emphasize that in some majors at some big schools, the student/faculty ratio simply can’t be beat. There are currently 22 faculty members (excluding emeriti) on Michigan’s philosophy faculty, for example, one of the strongest departments in the country in terms of size and academic stature, providing a breadth and depth that simply can’t be replicated at any LAC. Upper-level courses are small, as are intro courses if you come in on an honors track. Same in classics, which I’ve looked into with my D.</p>

<p>I’ll repeat what I said before, with a slight twist: if you know you’re going for a popular and widely taught major like psych or poli sci, you may be better off at an LAC with a strong faculty in that area. But if you know you’re going for a less popular major like philosophy or classics (or just about any language other than French, Spanish, German, or maybe Italian or Chinese, depending on the school), you may be better off at a research university, because the LACs will likely have small faculties and limited course offerings, while the student/faculty ratios at the bigger schools will be just fine, and you’ll have a much richer set of faculty and courses offerings upon which to draw.</p>

22

<p>

</p>

<p>Not that this is much different from any other large research school such as Michigan, but would it not be interesting to ascertain the availability of the 22 faculty members during the past two school years and count the number of classes taught in the various semesters in comparisons to research sabbaticals and visiting professorial absences? </p>

<p>Breadth and depth might be different for practice and theory. Of course, there are always GSIs.</p>

23

<p>^ I never has a philosophy class from a GSI at Michigan. Also as my D & I have been touring LACs this summer and perusing their course catalogs, I find a very high rate of sabbaticals, research leaves, and visits away among their faculties–throwing a much bigger wrench into the curriculum of a 3- or 4-person department than in a 22-person department.</p>

24

<p>^ That’s "I never had . . . " Typing is not my forte.</p>

25

<p>I tell you from personal experience.i’m business student at a small private college(not exactly an LAC) and i do know the name of most students and professors.So i really like the “family” feel we get from the school.On the opposite side, since it is so small there is not much going on…That what i missi from a larger school.In a medium/large universities you have endless activities going on on campus. plus you have more research…I personally would not attend an university with more than 15.000 students.I like the more personal feel.</p>

26

<p>^^^^ xiggi,
I took up your challenge. I didn’t bother to try to track down who specifically was on leave, but in the fall of 2007 the Michigan philosophy department ACTUALLY (not “theoretically”) offered 14 separate introductory (100- and 200-level) courses and seminars (some with multiple sections) in various aspects of philosophy and logic, together with 17 advanced (300- and 400-level) courses and seminars. The 400-level courses are also open to grad students, and in fact typically have a few more grad students than undergrads; a pretty sharp bunch in one of the strongest philosophy graduate programs in the country. In addition, the department offered 7 500- and 600-level courses and seminars, open to advanced grad students only. A few of the intro-level recitation sections were taught by grad students; everything else including all upper-level courses were taught by regular tenured- and tenure-track faculty and a few visiting faculty. </p>

<p>Similar numbers in the Spring of 2008 (though Michigan, with more candor than most, accurately calls it the “Winter” semester): 10 separate intro-level courses and seminars (multiple sections of some), 18 advanced 300- and 400-level courses and seminars, and 8 grad student-only 500- and 600-level courses and seminars. </p>

<p>For comparison purposes, Amherst—an LAC with a particularly distinguished philosophy faculty—has 5 (non-emeriti) faculty members. In the Fall of 2007 they offered a total of 9 courses and seminars, two of them at the introductory level (intro to logic, intro to philosophy), and in the Spring of 2008, 10 courses and seminars (again two at the intro level). So that’s 19 courses in a year at Amherst v. 59 at Michigan (counting only courses open to undergrads), including 35 upper-level courses at Michigan v. 15 at Amherst. Among the areas of philosophy conspicuously missing from the Amherst curriculum over that period: any kind of non-Western philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language (except for a seminar on Quine and Wittgenstein), epistemology, philosophy of law, philosophy of religion, advanced courses in philosophy of science, advanced courses in mathematical logic. </p>

<p>I say this not to knock Amherst. Their philosophy department is quite impressive for a LAC, and I have no doubt their intro-level classes, taught by regular faculty members, are stronger than those at Michigan taught by TAs (but note that the honors intro classes at Michigan are regularly taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty). But my point remains, you won’t have nearly the breadth and depth of upper-level course offerings at LACs, even very strong ones. And I further submit that if you come into Michigan in the honors program, and begin in philosophy with the honors introductory sequence in philosophy and logic and move directly into the upper-level course offerings (as most honors philosophy majors do), it will give you an undergraduate education in the field that precious few schools can match. </p>

<p>This point came home to me in acute fashion in looking for LACs that would be able to accommodate by daughter if she were to major in Classics, entering college with 6 years of Latin and 4 years of ancient Greek already. That would just about place her out of the Classics curriculum at all but a small handful of LACs. The top departments at major research universities (including Michigan) would be able to accommodate her, however. But she may now elect to go in another direction entirely.</p>

27

<p>If you want (choose) to work closely with a teacher for a prolonged period on any particular subject or project, the LAC is hugely more accomodating. Yes, you will have to be somewhat lucky to find a person you will want to work with in any particular field, personalities being what they are, but the chance of actually connecting with someone who will take you up as a going concern is immeasurably more likely at a LAC. Having said this, the best teacher I ever met, and I have met a good many both as a student and as a peer, was a lowly Assistant Professor at a medium size state university. He may not be unique, but I suspect he is pretty damn close. Coincidentally, he received his higher education at a prominent LAC and did his graduate work at a highly touted western university. When I think of him, I consider him a classic example of the quintessential LAC teacher–I’m just glad he wasn’t.</p>

28

<p>lacs are horrible, theyre like private school for high school…gives you a strong academic education but absolutely NO social education.</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>While I am unclear on your definition of “social education”, I get the feeling that you are completely wrong. And if “social education” means partying until you can’t see straight, getting high on any number of things, and hooking up like it’s going out of style, rest assured there are kids at ALL colleges who do this.</p>

30

<p>Even Grove? haha That was one of the LACs I was thinking about. That, and Oberlin, Kenyon, the College of Wooster, and maybe some Ivy league if I have a good reason.</p>

31

<p>Haha. Maybe not EVERY college is so lenient. I think someone at Bob Jones U (BJ University, hehe) secretly tried to listen to some Jars of Clay while downing some Miller Lite. They were promptly executed.</p>

32

<p>that’s interesting, because when i visted swarthmore i thought to myself “wow, i would love to go here…for high school” I ended up going to a larger university because even though i knew i was giving up a better academic education, a bigger school will better prepare me for the real world (competition, self-motivation, social skills, confidence…etc)</p>

33

<p>I don’t think that bigger schools are inherently better at teaching on social skills than LACs, or vica versa. I think, like academics, it depends on the person. For some, the more do-it-yourself nature of large schools, plus the larger mix of people (including possible having a lot more pre-professionals than at most LACs) is a better place to grow, socially. For others, the anonymity of a large school means they slip by taking easy classes and partying all the time, not really learning much socially at all.</p>

<p>At LACs, for some, the small student bodies and environment that is designed to not let people slip through the cracks makes people feel coddled and like they’re in highschool. For others (like me!), having a ton of people around who know me and hold me (and themselves) to higher standards of social interaction than most do in highschool is a great way to grow socially, because there’s nowhere to hide when you act immaturely—someone will call you on your BS. And there’s no hoping you won’t ever see that ex, friend you fell out with, one-night stand or person you were really rude to again, so you have to learn how to deal with people you aren’t necessarily comfortable around.</p>

34

<p>What would I miss if I didn’t go to a good LAC?</p>

<p>The bottom line (IMHO): Individual attention from professors, caused by small classes and lack of TAs. You have to be willing to be coddled, meaning personally pointed and pushed in the right direction according to your goals, but you will also be expected to work harder than at the big U, and you can’t hide.</p>

35

<p>What would you miss? IMHO, many things:

  • being in an environment where education, learning and growth are the top priority
  • teaching, mentoring and advising by professors who are there to teach you and not just to do their research
  • not being taught by TAs
  • many opportunities to get to know faculty well, and to do research projects with faculty (because you’re not competing with graduate students for these)
  • often a supportive sense of community–people who know you and care about you personally
  • the opportunity to enhance your social skills on many levels
  • available, committed professors who are rewarded for teaching
  • you’ll learn how to think, how to follow your interests, and be encouraged personally to do so
  • the best quality education in most instances</p>
36

<p>

It sounds like Michigan has a good program. My advice would be that if you’re thinking of a large U, talk to current students and do what research you can to understand what the environment at the school is really like. In my experience in the UC system in CA, classes in many majors tend to be large even at the upper-division level and overall the campuses are strained trying to fulfill their 3 missions: research, grad programs, teach undergrads</p>

<p>At UCLA they have a review cycle and hit each dept every 8 years. These reviews are forthwright and publicly available at [UCLA</a> Academic Senate: Program Reviews](<a href=“http://www.senate.ucla.edu/programreview/schedule.htm]UCLA”>http://www.senate.ucla.edu/programreview/schedule.htm) And when you read thru them some of the info is surprising, if not alarming. Maybe things are different at Michigan, but I think the situation at UCLA is not uncommon at larger state U’s. I’m not trying to pick on UCLA here, its a great school, but you have to be the right kind of kid to thrive there. You simply aren’t going to get the personal attention and class size that you do in LACs and some privates. </p>

<p>UCLA has a great philosophy dept. Here’s what they say in their review

So these are the resources many LACs would find it tough to match. But they have larger responsibilities, too; at a large U the faculty has to teach not only its own majors (which may be comparatively small in number compared to the overall student body) but has to play a hand in teaching the general-ed classes to the entire U. So when you look at what they say about the undergrad program (and remember this is the UCLA philosophy dept. reviewing itself, not a critique from somebody at USC)

</a></p>

37

<p>I find Rice University very appealing because it takes a Liberal Arts approach, while still having the feel of a bigger school.</p>