I’m thinking Amherst but would love to know what others think.
It also depends to some extent on which science. For example, Amherst’s offerings in computer science, physics, and math are rather limited, although students can cross register at the nearby University of Massachusetts - Amherst.
There will be no definitive answer to your question.
There are too many hard-to-measure factors that might contribute to competing definitions of “top” or “strongest”.
According to a National Science Foundation survey, the following were the top 25 U.S. baccalaureate-origin LACs of 2002–11 science & engineering doctorate recipients, adjusted for institution size:
Harvey Mudd (24.4 S&E PhDs per 100 alumni)
Reed
Swarthmore
Carleton
Grinnell
Pomona
Haverford
Williams
Bryn Mawr
Macalester
Hillsdale
Oberlin
Amherst
Lawrence U.
Kalamazoo
Wesleyan
Wellesley
Hendrix
Whitman
Allegheny, Vassar, Bowdoin
Earlham
Mt. Holyoke
Occidental (5.7 S&E PhDs per 100 alumni)
Source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
Make what you will of this information.
It may be a useful starting point in identifying LACs that are relatively strong in some science fields …
although of course “science” covers a lot of ground.
Lawrence seems to have a relatively strong physics program;
some of the Keck Consortium colleges might be better choices for earth sciences.
(http://www.keckgeology.org/)
Check out course offerings in your area(s) of interest, faculty bios, and facilities
(as well as the overall ambience of the school, financial aid, etc etc).
There is a very big difference across the sciences. For example, the physics community has agreed an informal ‘core’ curriculum that is the basis for a physics major at pretty much any reasonably academic US college- that way, they know the minimum that their grad school applicants arrive with. US Med schools have done the same thing.
So, you can go anywhere and be in good shape for physics or pre-med- but some colleges will have stronger departments than others. So, look at the number of majors and tenured faculty- and the trend over time. Facilities that are reasonably up to date say the college is putting money into it. Look at what happens to graduates (med school acceptance rates, for example), but be aware that many people with science backgrounds go on to Law, Banking, and lots of other fields.
For any science, what are the research opportunities for students? How many students actually participate in these opportunities (beware the poster child, in which you are shown a shiny example- but it is a student so superlative that they could have gone to community college and still been a star).
Actually, while the physics major core is rather standard, some smaller departments may offer some of the courses very infrequently, like once every two years or less often. This can be disadvantageous.
For small schools for geology, consider those with “mines” or “mining” in their names.
It depends on whether you are looking for natural or applied sciences. The list of liberal arts colleges with strong Engineering or Computer Science departments is shorter than the list with strong Physics, Life Sciences, or Environmental Studies programs.
Agreed. Note that Grinnell, which places high on the list in tk21769’s post, has no geology offerings whatsoever, for example.
About two years ago I ranked the top 60 LACs (per US News) by the percentage of STEM majors as my 7000th post. Popularity is NOT necessarily indicative of academic strength, and the list may look somewhat different two years later, particularly toward the bottom of the list, but it may give you an idea nevertheless of where you’re likely to find lots of science-oriented people.*
Natural Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Physics)
- Pomona 28.3%
- Harvey Mudd 26.2%
- Colby 25.4%
- Carleton 25.4%
- St. Olaf 24.2%
- Colorado College 23.9%
- Scripps 23.8%
- Gettysburg 22.8%
- Mount Holyoke 22.4%
- Rhodes 21.9%
- Oberlin 20.8%
- Middlebury 20.6%
- Occidental 20.4%
- Williams 20.4%
- Union 20.4%
- Franklin & Marshall 20.3%
- Whitman 20.3%
- Lawrence 20.3%
- Bowdoin 20.0%
- Macalester 19.9%
- Wellesley 19.6%
- Dickinson 19.0%
- DePauw 18.7%
- Denison 18.7%
- Hamilton 18.1%
- Haverford 17.9%
- Grinnell 17.7%
- St. Lawrence 17.5%
- Reed 17.3%
- Swarthmore 16.8%
- Willamette 16.7%
- Beloit 16.2%
- Bates 16.0%
- Bryn Mawr 16.0%
- Lafayette 15.9%
- Sewanee 15.8%
- Wabash 15.7%
- Colgate 15.5%
- Smith 15.5%
- Vassar 15.4%
- Amherst 15.2%
- Bucknell 14.7%
- Centre 14.7%
- Wesleyan 13.6%
- Furman 13.6%
- Skidmore 13.1%
- Barnard 13.0%
- Davidson 12.9%
- Washington & Lee 12.7%
- Connecticut College 12.4%
- Pitzer 12.3%
- Trinity College 10.9%
- Holy Cross 10.9%
- Kenyon 9.95%
- Claremont McKenna 9.46%
- Wheaton (IL) 9.01%
- University of Richmond 8.64%
All STEM Fields
- Harvey Mudd 93.0%
- Lafayette 41.7%
- Pomona 36.0%
- Bucknell 35.3%
- Carleton 34.8%
- St. Olaf 33.0%
- Union 31.4%
- Colby 31.0%
- Scripps 28.6%
- Williams 27.6%
- Swarthmore 27.1%
- Colorado College 26.7%
- Grinnell 25.9%
- Lawrence 25.8%
- Mount Holyoke 25.6%
- Gettysburg 25.2%
- Oberlin 25.0%
- Wabash 25.0%
- St. Lawrence 25.0%
- Macalester 24.4%
- Bryn Mawr 24.1%
- Bowdoin 23.9%
- Hamilton 23.7%
- Whitman 23.7%
- Middlebury 23.4%
- Wellesley 22.9%
- Franklin & Marshall 22.7%
- Rhodes 22.6%
- Reed 22.6%
- DePauw 22.4%
- Haverford 22.0%
- Smith 21.5%
- Occidental 21.3%
- Centre 20.8%
- Willamette 20.5%
- Dickinson 20.4%
- Amherst 20.3%
- Denison 20.2%
- Beloit 20.1%
- Colgate 18.4%
- Vassar 18.1%
- Washington & Lee 18.0%
- Bates 17.8%
- Sewanee 17.6%
- Wesleyan 17.3%
- Trinity College 16.8%
- Furman 16.3%
- Davidson 16.1%
- Skidmore 15.5%
- Connecticut College 15.3%
- Barnard 14.7%
- Holy Cross 14.5%
- Claremont McKenna 13.9%
- Wheaton (IL) 13.3%
- Pitzer 13.1%
- Kenyon 11.8%
- University of Richmond 11.4%
*Given the popularity of this question and the ever growing number of posters suddenly discovering a love of engineering and CS, I plan to update the list soon.
Perhaps the list might be more useful if split between:
- biological sciences
- physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy)
- computer science
- math and statistics
- engineering
^
If posters want that level of detail, they should consult IPEDS, which through a rather handy tool allows you to rank colleges by the number of graduates in a particular major (either all colleges or whichever subset you decide to rank). I have only so much time, alas. With growing numbers of interdisciplinary majors, moreover, it’s hard to draw a line – would you count biochemistry as biology or chemistry? Environmental science as biology or geology? Etc. etc.
I do think it’s very important to avoid lumping all the sciences together for PhD production, however. Upwards of 75% of biology majors can be pre-med – in math or physics, the percentage will be considerably smaller. Some science disciplines, like geology, either don’t require an advanced degree at all or require only a MS for a great job.
Using NSF data on the webcaspar site, one can track PhD production in some detail, just as one can for majors from the IPEDS data. One can track individual academic disciplines (e.g. chemistry), broader categories (e.g. physical sciences), or arbitrary combinations.
What specifically are you looking for in a department, OP? Do you want a variety of course offerings, a solid cadre of upper-level courses in a major, solid opportunities to do research…what? I’m willing to bet that with a few exceptions*, you can get a great science education at most of the top liberal arts colleges.
*Excluding Harvey Mudd - which is probably one of the best places, if not the best, given its science orientation - and excluding the difference between LACs that offer engineering vs. those that do not.
I just want to say something about the above poster as a Pomona student. Context and department matters. Mudd’s science offerings are in general excellent, but to somehow suggest that they are worth a point of consideration above other elite liberal art colleges is a bit unfair. I can only speak for biology from firsthand experience since that’s where I have taken off-campus courses at; I’ve also done research in their labs through the joint HHMI summer research program. Pomona’s biology department is considerably better. The facilities are far nicer than that of Mudd’s biology facilities, opportunities for research at Pomona are widespread due to a rather biology based chemistry department (which adds a robust molecular biology program to Pomona’s offerings), and there is a larger community of students doing Biology at Pomona. Educationally, both schools are similar, with focuses on independent projects and primary literature- I’ve had stronger courses at Pomona, however. Most of the biology attention at Mudd goes towards the intro core biology sequences, whereas at Pomona there is a similar amount of attention to both intro and upperlevel courses.
Meanwhile, if you had an interest in computation biology, Mudd would be better since 2 professors work with computational biology (compared to only one at Pomona) and they have special courses in bioinformatics and computer science with biological applications.
Neuroscience or geology at Mudd? Not really an option. Their core is rather intense too, limiting the number of upper level biology courses you might be able to take.
I’m pretty sure there isn’t a school that triumphs other peers at every single scientific discipline. Some schools are better than others however in certain areas, and my experiences with Mudd and Pomona’s biology department reflect that. I’ve heard physics and CS at Mudd is better than at Pomona, whereas math and chemistry are similar at both schools. I’m ultimately grateful for the opportunity to cross-enroll and to gain the combined net benefit of the Claremont Colleges, but it’s not accurate to list Mudd as the best at every type of scientific discipline. Do your research.
1 Like
Also, the biology majors tend to be the biggest group of science majors at most schools*, so lumping all sciences together will often get biology-biased data, which may end up being misleading, especially in comparison to schools where biology tends to be less popular relative to other sciences.
- http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_322.10.asp lists 95,849 bachelor's degrees in biological and biomedical sciences for 2011-2012, but only 26,663 in physical sciences and science technologies.
Top 30 LACs for PhD Production in Physical Sciences
Year: 2003-2012
Carnegie Classification (standardized): Baccalaureate/Liberal Arts I
Academic Discipline, Broad (standardized): Physical Sciences
Source: webcaspar.com (NSF data)
Number of Doctorates Earned by Alumni… College
94 Carleton College
85 Reed College
63 Williams College
60 College of Wooster
60 Swarthmore College
57 Franklin and Marshall College
54 Allegheny College
54 Grinnell College
51 Vassar College
50 College of the Holy Cross
49 Gustavus Adolphus College
45 Lawrence University
45 St Olaf College
45 Wesleyan University
44 Furman University
44 Haverford College
44 Hope College
44 University of Puget Sound
41 Macalester College
38 Bucknell University
38 Kalamazoo College
37 Occidental College
35 Bryn Mawr College
35 Oberlin College
35 Pomona College
35 Wellesley College
34 Colorado College
34 Whitman College
33 Drew University
32 Amherst College
Top 30+ LACs for PhD Production in Life Sciences
Year: 2003-2012
Carnegie Classification (standardized): Baccalaureate/Liberal Arts I
Academic Discipline, Broad (standardized): Life Sciences
Source: webcaspar.com (NSF data)
Number of Doctorates Earned by Alumni… College
208 Carleton College
189 Oberlin College
152 Swarthmore College
152 Wesleyan University
149 St Olaf College
144 Grinnell College
139 Wellesley College
137 Reed College
135 Smith College
133 Pomona College
131 Williams College
123 Allegheny College
117 Mount Holyoke College
115 Haverford College
112 Bucknell University
111 Bowdoin College
110 Colgate University
104 Middlebury College
100 Macalester College
96 Amherst College
93 Vassar College
92 Colby College
90 Colorado College
87 Bates College
85 Ohio Wesleyan University
83 Davidson College
78 Earlham College
78 Gustavus Adolphus College
77 Barnard College
76 Bryn Mawr College
75 Kalamazoo College
74 Franklin and Marshall, Occidental, Ursinus
Top 30 LACs for PhD Production in Geociences
Year: 2003-2012
Carnegie Classification (standardized): Baccalaureate/Liberal Arts I
Academic Discipline, Broad (standardized): Geosciences
Source: webcaspar.com (NSF data)
Number of Doctorates Earned by Alumni… College
81 Carleton College
29 Williams College
28 Colorado College
28 Oberlin College
26 Colgate University
23 Eckerd College
23 Whitman College
22 Amherst College
22 Middlebury College
22 Smith College
21 Wesleyan University
20 Macalester College
20 Pomona College
19 Bates College
16 Franklin and Marshall College
15 Colby College
14 Bowdoin College
14 Hamilton College
14 Juniata College
13 Bucknell University
13 Mount Holyoke College
12 College of Wooster
11 Occidental College
10 Hampshire College
10 Lawrence University
10 University of Puget Sound
9 Hope College
8 Allegheny College
8 Beloit College
8 Dickinson College
Note: 8 of the top 10 are Keck Consortium colleges.
Top 30+ LACs for PhD Production in Math and Computer Science
Year: 2003-2012
Carnegie Classification (standardized): Baccalaureate/Liberal Arts I
Academic Discipline, Broad (standardized): Mathematics and Computer Science
Source: webcaspar.com (NSF data)
Number of Doctorates Earned by Alumni… College
50 Williams College
47 Carleton College
42 Swarthmore College
37 St Olaf College
34 Oberlin College
30 Reed College
27 Amherst College
25 Pomona College
22 Grinnell College
22 Haverford College
22 Macalester College
21 Bucknell University
20 Whitman College
19 Furman University
19 Smith College
17 Bryn Mawr College
17 Wesleyan University
16 Bowdoin College
16 Colgate University
16 Hope College
16 Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)
15 Lafayette College
15 Spelman College
14 Davidson College
14 DePauw University
14 Lawrence University
13 University of Minnesota - Morris
13 University of Puget Sound
13 Wellesley College
12 College of the Holy Cross, Kalamazoo, Middlebury, Mt. Holyoke, University of the South, Vassar
I certainly didn’t say that - I excluded it because it’s a science-oriented school and “one of the best,” as I noted in my comment. A student who didn’t want to be in a science-oriented college might not enjoy Mudd. The point of my comment is that the science education is likely to be pretty similar at most general types of top liberal arts colleges.
I’m also wary of using PhD outcomes as a measure of the department’s science education/quality. Some colleges just attract the kinds of students who don’t necessarily want to continue onto academic study and research careers, and some colleges may emphasize practical education or careers directly after the bachelor’s.
^ I think what you’re suggesting is that a department with low PhD production isn’t necessarily a weak department. I’m inclined to agree with that. Is the converse likely to be true? Is it very likely that a weak department would motivate and prepare relatively many of its graduates to complete doctorates in the same field?
Look at the lists above. Is it just a coincidence that St. Olaf has especially high PhD production rates in Math? That (and choral music) seems to be one of its premier departments. Is it a coincidence that Colorado College and Eckerd have especially high rates in Geosciences? Look at a map, or satellite pictures, of CC’s and Eckerd’s locations. Those two schools are superbly sited for field work in geology (CC) and oceanography (Eckerd).
Is it a coincidence that most of the top LACs in geoscience PhD production are Keck Geology Consortium members?
(http://www.keckgeology.org/).
Is it a coincidence that Amherst’s numbers for physical sciences are relatively low? I don’t think so. It must be almost the only selective LAC that has not built a new science center in years.