Liberal Arts v. Non-Liberal Arts (Universities) - which is it? We are struggling!

[Anonymous]

I posted this in another thread, but the best they you can do for your DC is help them find the right school for them. That might mean a huge university, or a teeny tiny "no name" liberal arts school. All students should attend a place where they will thrive as a person and a student. I know everyone is concerned about future earning or what imaginary future employers might think about your DC's undergrad school, but, please, STOP. Worry about finding an environment where your DC will be happy and excel.

If your DC loves English and history, why no encourage them to pursue that (and, yes, they'll probably change majors at least once. Oh to be 19 again!). There's lots that can be done with those interests....teaching. PoliSci. Government. Regardless, English and history will teach them all sorts of transferable skills. I wish more students were English/writing majors (history majors have to do a lot of writing, too); then I wouldn't have to suffer through all the horrible cover letters and writing sample whenever I have to fill a position.

[Anonymous]

parents And students need to look at college as an investment. What is the plan of employment and salary potential. If they continue to let little johnny or jane find themselves they will find themselves at occupy wall street complaining about jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted this in another thread, but the best they you can do for your DC is help them find the right school for them. That might mean a huge university, or a teeny tiny "no name" liberal arts school. All students should attend a place where they will thrive as a person and a student. I know everyone is concerned about future earning or what imaginary future employers might think about your DC's undergrad school, but, please, STOP. Worry about finding an environment where your DC will be happy and excel.

If your DC loves English and history, why no encourage them to pursue that (and, yes, they'll probably change majors at least once. Oh to be 19 again!). There's lots that can be done with those interests....teaching. PoliSci. Government. Regardless, English and history will teach them all sorts of transferable skills. I wish more students were English/writing majors (history majors have to do a lot of writing, too); then I wouldn't have to suffer through all the horrible cover letters and writing sample whenever I have to fill a position.

Well said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try a collge which focuses on both like University of Rochester. It is one of the "new Ivies."

What does "new Ivies" mean?

[Anonymous]

Topic is a fair question. Growing view is that a liberal arts degree is worthless UNLESS you are definite in pursuing a secondary degree...then it seems to make real sense. Given today's economy one has to seriously consider whether a LAC is worth: the effort to get in and the tuition

[Anonymous]

What undergrad degree, liberal arts or otherwise, doesn't require a graduate degree? Assuming there will be some kind of graduate education in order to succeed, a liberal arts education is a valuable foundation. I actually resent that our kids don't get this in high school - why must we go to university to learn to write well and think critically? - but given the state of affairs, a liberal arts education is almost a necessity in my view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What undergrad degree, liberal arts or otherwise, doesn't require a graduate degree? Assuming there will be some kind of graduate education in order to succeed, a liberal arts education is a valuable foundation. I actually resent that our kids don't get this in high school - why must we go to university to learn to write well and think critically? - but given the state of affairs, a liberal arts education is almost a necessity in my view.

As an engineer who went on to have a successful career as a lawyer, I agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you've got two different questions.

One is whether to study a liberal arts discipline, and the other is whether or not to choose a small liberal arts college. You can study English at UVA or College Park, or physics at Wellesley or Morehouse.

This person read my mind. I went to Virginia Tech. With parents from the Northeast, I was expected to go to a Liberal Arts college but we visited Tech on a whim and loved it. It was a great decision. I thought I wanted to do the science thing and I did for several years but ultimately switched majors into History--a liberal arts discipline--and went to law school. Universities give options that smaller liberal arts colleges can't offer. And for the sciences, the Universities typically have larger departments that support Masters and PHD students and thus have teachers and facilities that the typical liberal arts college cannot provide. If the child has no clue what they want to do, then I vote for a University. If they know they want to do a liberal arts degree and then go on to grad school for that discipline, then I think liberal arts colleges may have an edge. Even then, I would push for a University because at 17 I KNEW I wanted to do science. At 20, I KNEW I did not and was happy to have the options my school offered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try a collge which focuses on both like University of Rochester. It is one of the "new Ivies."

What does "new Ivies" mean?

It means nothing. Every few years a crop of schools becomes fashionable and becomes very competitive or maybe it was already. I know that Rochester is a very good school but the "new Ivies" thing is a way to try to make it something that it isn't The old school version was the "little 3"--Amherst, Williams and I can't remember the third. Most people haven't heard of that and many people don't even know what schools make up the 7 sisters. When I was young, the trendy "new Ivies" were Duke, Wake Forest, Rice, Wash U., McGill. Today I think Reed is a biggie and maybe Rochester too. The Ivies are the Ivies and that is that. There are quite a few schools that are generally considered better than some of the Ivies anyway (Berkeley, Stanford, UVa, Chicago, are just a few).

[Anonymous]

I went to a small liberal arts college and did sort of run out of courses before I graduated, and wished I'd gone to a bigger place, but loved my friends and the teaching in the classes I did take and got good grades and went on to get very good scholarships at extremely competitive grads schools and did both PhD and post doc with well recognized institutions. Taught for a while, did gov't policy for a while, liked publishing and mentoring students/staff better than teaching, so think I'll stick with the latter

All of which is to say I know this world, if not as intimately as people who've been there their entire careers. In my observation, for jobs and grad school, grades are the biggest thing, followed by school reputation for grad school and alumni network in the relevant job market for jobs. (My little liberal arts school isn't super well known outside this area, but is recognized as pretty good within it and I got a call from an alumnae whom I"d never met before with a job offer within two weeks of graduation. I turned it down because I already had a good grad school offer and plan but found it most reassuring.)

Kids are pretty good, when visiting, at figuring out the type of school where they'll be happiest and a 3.8 in underwater basket weaving really is better than lackluster grades and ability in a field in which they'll struggle. By and large, in my experience, folks are better and more adaptable at finding ways to find jobs doing what they're good at than finding even mainstream ones in in-demand fields where their ability and interest isn't so solid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've got two different questions.

One is whether to study a liberal arts discipline, and the other is whether or not to choose a small liberal arts college. You can study English at UVA or College Park, or physics at Wellesley or Morehouse.

This person read my mind. I went to Virginia Tech. With parents from the Northeast, I was expected to go to a Liberal Arts college but we visited Tech on a whim and loved it. It was a great decision. I thought I wanted to do the science thing and I did for several years but ultimately switched majors into History--a liberal arts discipline--and went to law school. Universities give options that smaller liberal arts colleges can't offer. And for the sciences, the Universities typically have larger departments that support Masters and PHD students and thus have teachers and facilities that the typical liberal arts college cannot provide. If the child has no clue what they want to do, then I vote for a University. If they know they want to do a liberal arts degree and then go on to grad school for that discipline, then I think liberal arts colleges may have an edge. Even then, I would push for a University because at 17 I KNEW I wanted to do science. At 20, I KNEW I did not and was happy to have the options my school offered.

Seems like the predominant view is that if DC "KNOWS" what they want to do...(e.g., go to law school), then Liberal Arts may be the better route to go. Problem is that as this post points out very clearly..people change their minds. Then / when that happens, will the Liberal Arts degree be worth anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted this in another thread, but the best they you can do for your DC is help them find the right school for them. That might mean a huge university, or a teeny tiny "no name" liberal arts school. All students should attend a place where they will thrive as a person and a student. I know everyone is concerned about future earning or what imaginary future employers might think about your DC's undergrad school, but, please, STOP. Worry about finding an environment where your DC will be happy and excel.

If your DC loves English and history, why no encourage them to pursue that (and, yes, they'll probably change majors at least once. Oh to be 19 again!). There's lots that can be done with those interests....teaching. PoliSci. Government. Regardless, English and history will teach them all sorts of transferable skills. I wish more students were English/writing majors (history majors have to do a lot of writing, too); then I wouldn't have to suffer through all the horrible cover letters and writing sample whenever I have to fill a position.

This attitude at first seems great..but seriously, how can someone really know what type of environment they will like until they've really become a part of it? Example - many people, including a previous poster assume that a shy introverted person would do better in a small school. I myself am quite introverted and went to a large university (Tech) and loved it. At every university, people find their social circle, it really doesn't matter how big the school is overall. Obviously if your child is strongly interested in an obscure sport or hobby, you would want to find a school that would allow them to pursue it, or if your child is an alternative, artsy type you should steer away from schools that are strongly Greek. But outside of extreme scenarios, I think its rather difficult to gauge what school will allow your child to "thrive as a person".
I must admit a personal bias for big schools. They simply offer much more academic and social options making it more likely that someone will be able to find his or her niche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you've got two different questions.

One is whether to study a liberal arts discipline, and the other is whether or not to choose a small liberal arts college. You can study English at UVA or College Park, or physics at Wellesley or Morehouse.

This person read my mind. I went to Virginia Tech. With parents from the Northeast, I was expected to go to a Liberal Arts college but we visited Tech on a whim and loved it. It was a great decision. I thought I wanted to do the science thing and I did for several years but ultimately switched majors into History--a liberal arts discipline--and went to law school. Universities give options that smaller liberal arts colleges can't offer. And for the sciences, the Universities typically have larger departments that support Masters and PHD students and thus have teachers and facilities that the typical liberal arts college cannot provide. If the child has no clue what they want to do, then I vote for a University. If they know they want to do a liberal arts degree and then go on to grad school for that discipline, then I think liberal arts colleges may have an edge. Even then, I would push for a University because at 17 I KNEW I wanted to do science. At 20, I KNEW I did not and was happy to have the options my school offered.

Seems like the predominant view is that if DC "KNOWS" what they want to do...(e.g., go to law school), then Liberal Arts may be the better route to go. Problem is that as this post points out very clearly..people change their minds. Then / when that happens, will the Liberal Arts degree be worth anything?

I went to a relatively large university, with many choices and all of my friends in college, except 1, changed majors. However, the kids who started with strong liberal arts interests, generally stayed in that field, or went into related fields such as fine arts, journalism, or education. I didn't know any kids who started out wanting to major in history and ended up in Electrical Engineering or microbiology. I knew some kids who started out in engineering and ended up in econ, just not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

In light of current economic conditions, and recent information from some of the LACs taht "placement" of graduates has not been all that great, would like to revivie this thread. What do people really think of the LACs? Does it make sense to go to these institutions in light of the fact that many grads are simply "unemployalbe"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try a collge which focuses on both like University of Rochester. It is one of the "new Ivies."

What does "new Ivies" mean?

It means nothing. Every few years a crop of schools becomes fashionable and becomes very competitive or maybe it was already. I know that Rochester is a very good school but the "new Ivies" thing is a way to try to make it something that it isn't The old school version was the "little 3"--Amherst, Williams and I can't remember the third. Most people haven't heard of that and many people don't even know what schools make up the 7 sisters. When I was young, the trendy "new Ivies" were Duke, Wake Forest, Rice, Wash U., McGill. Today I think Reed is a biggie and maybe Rochester too. The Ivies are the Ivies and that is that. There are quite a few schools that are generally considered better than some of the Ivies anyway (Berkeley, Stanford, UVa, Chicago, are just a few).

The third little 3 is Wesleyan