My DD wants to avoid applying to most competitive top 25 "usual suspects" colleges - which LACs considered part of T'25?

[Anonymous]

A common problem with zealous LAC boosters is their lack of knowledge (ignorance) about undergraduate programs at National Universities.

Most amusing are the LAC boosters who criticize National Universities for engaging in too much research allegedly at the expense of teaching undergraduate students, but then boldly (and incorrectly) assert that the best place for undergraduates to get research experience is at an LAC.

The sheer lack of knowledge regarding higher education by zealous LAC boosters is astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A common problem with zealous LAC boosters is their lack of knowledge (ignorance) about undergraduate programs at National Universities.

Most amusing are the LAC boosters who criticize National Universities for engaging in too much research allegedly at the expense of teaching undergraduate students, but then boldly (and incorrectly) assert that the best place for undergraduates to get research experience is at an LAC.

The sheer lack of knowledge regarding higher education by zealous LAC boosters is astounding.

Take a breath, dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very odd that some LAC supporters criticize Johns Hopkins University. JHU has, by far, the largest research & development (R&D) budget of any US school and probably of any school in the world. There is no LAC that is even close to JHU or to any Top 15 university excluding Dartmouth College & Brown University--an other of which are over-rated.

If LACs were ranked with National Universities, none--according to the Wall Street Journal & The Times Higher Education published rankings, would fall among the top 20 schools.

Williams would 1000% - and probably higher than JHU, which some would say is a one trick pony

Now you're just be silly & childish. Compare the research budget of JHU to any other school in the world. JHU's 2023 fiscal year research budget was over $3.8 billion ($3,800,000,000+). Over $3.8 billion for just one year. Williams College's R&D budget for the same fiscal year (2023) was a paltry $3.448 million (less than one-tenth of one percent of JHU's 2023 R&D budget!)

JHU's $3,800,000,000+ budget versus Williams College's $3,448,000 R&D budget. They are in two different leagues.

They have two different functions. And, Williams is far superior at it’s mission which is undergraduate education.

Maybe, maybe not. What is Williams College's mission ? JHU undergraduates are hard-working and successful.

I don't think that anyone would say the JHU students are brilliant, hardworking, and successful; they are. But the implication that SLACs are somehow a "lesser league that JHU is just obtuse. Focusing on research budgets, is just obtuse (undergraduates are a nuisance for researchers, they are not wanted). The outsized success of top SLACs across the board in Phd programs, IB, Consulting, Finance, top law school admissions, med school admissions, etc. relative to their size is indisputable. It is a superior model for undergraduate education.

DP. Look, I am not sure the point of this debate. I am a JHU alumni. Spouse attended an Ivy. We visited Williams and were impressed, though it would be a tough decision since kid is very research focused. But at the end of the day, my kid would be lucky to attend either JHU, any of the Ivies, or Williams. They all different schools, all with pros and cons. There is no "one superior" model, and silly to debate without considering specifics of the student, as well as career goals.

This is one thing the research university parents always fail to get- research is everywhere at top LACs and it’s for your kids, not a grad student, not a Postdoc, not a staff research assistant, not an affiliated scholar. It’s research that undergraduate students can advance a project on and get publications on. DD goes to Williams and is on her 4th publication from her lab as a senior. She also has two publications with Yale from working with a researcher during the summers. DD’s older friends all got top research fellowships and go to top graduate schools. It’s super cool that these research universities have all the fancy equipment and top researchers, but most students aren’t getting into those labs and their projects aren’t productive.

Sorry, but both my husband and I are in research and so we are not clueless about this topic. Note that you had to point out your kid did research at Yale during the summer. Publications are not all the same. Research labs do not all have the same impact in the field. Ph.D. programs are becoming increasingly competitive, and having a research-oriented mentor who is a leader in the field and who is also at the school you actually attend is very valuable. This does not mean you cannot get into a top Ph.D. program from a good LAC, but for a kid who already knows what kind of research they want to pursue, a research university has the advantage. You seem to want to claim that LAC have ALL the advantages, which seems a bit delusional. I will gladly admit that R1s lose to LAC in some respects. But anyone here claiming that one type of school is superior for all types of students is bonkers.

+1
Also a professor, "known" name R1 private: research for undergrads is widely available even in non-stem areas. Publications, which need longterm research, are not uncommon for undergrads. Top schools prioritize undergrad research, and have leaders in many fields. UCB and other top publics offer the same but with the higher ratio of undergrads to lab spots, research is typically much harder to get than at the top-research privates.
LACs do not compare at all on research. They can't. Summer R1 research (REUs )prioritize students from LACs and other primarily-undergrad institutions but with the huge funding crisis many REUs were cut, even at top schools like Yale! The situation for LAC students got a lot worse summer of 2025 and will not rebound any time soon.

I'm surprised a professor would be this biased towards r1 institutions. R1's tend to have projects for undergrads that aren't going to lead to publication; it is a complete waste of time giving an undergrad a publishable project when you can give them busy work for their CV and assign your grad students or staff to a project. I don't think the previous poster said that LACs have better research. No where did they really imply it.

There's really no proof for your final line. We don't know the future, and many REUs ran last year. Sure, some were cut, but new ones also started like the HHMI research program. Research being widely available isn't really indicative that you can get it. Many students at research institutions. Sure, if you're at Harvard, it is amazing to be an undergrad there and take part in the best research, but most people go to state universities where you do have to work a bit for it, and it may be difficult to be put on a project that will actually lead to publication. I'm an academic in physics. Research universities objectively have the best facilities and best resources, but our best applicants are often split between top universities and top liberal arts colleges. I've had students come in from Pomona, Haverford, Berkeley, MIT, Swarthmore, UCLA, Princeton, and Williams. None are more trained than the other.

I am the other prof before the PP you responded to. I don't disagree with everything you have said, and sure great students can come to Ph.D. programs from LAC, but I really take issue with the bolded statement, which seems like a fiction parents have created here. Who has time to create busy work for undergrads that leads nowhere? Science is collaborative. The graduate students and postdocs are never your kid's competitors. They are your kid's other potential mentors, and they will help train your kid. Undergrads seldom (almost never) have the experience or expertise to take off on their own amazing project and get first authorship (unless perhaps it is for a very underwhelming journal). You WANT your kid to be a part of a vibrant lab with grad students and post docs who all help train your kid in the methods and logic of an established line of research. And if your kid is hardworking, enthusiastic, bright, and able to contribute to the lab, they get their name on the papers too. But more importantly, they will have gained a lot of real research skills and knowledge that they can take with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t trade the undergrad classroom experience I had at my SLAC for anything and am a huge fan of LAC’s. However, it’s not for everyone and there’s a lot to be said for people who navigate their way academically in bigger university environments and take full advantage of the opportunities there. There’s no one “right” undergrad academic experience.

+1 one of my kids went to a LAC and one to a big state U. Both got what they wanted from the college experience. I think it helped that big-school kid was in a relatively small major + worked as a TA so got more faculty engagement that way. And, LAC-kid is in the school's largest major so there is a good variety of faculty and resources for a really rich experience.

For OP's kid who doesn't want to apply to super-selective schools, I think that's totally reasonable. Why put so much effort and stress into winning a lottery ticket. Find schools that meet your criteria that have acceptance rates of at least 30%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t trade the undergrad classroom experience I had at my SLAC for anything and am a huge fan of LAC’s. However, it’s not for everyone and there’s a lot to be said for people who navigate their way academically in bigger university environments and take full advantage of the opportunities there. There’s no one “right” undergrad academic experience.

+1 one of my kids went to a LAC and one to a big state U. Both got what they wanted from the college experience. I think it helped that big-school kid was in a relatively small major + worked as a TA so got more faculty engagement that way. And, LAC-kid is in the school's largest major so there is a good variety of faculty and resources for a really rich experience.

For OP's kid who doesn't want to apply to super-selective schools, I think that's totally reasonable. Why put so much effort and stress into winning a lottery ticket. Find schools that meet your criteria that have acceptance rates of at least 30%.

One concern I had for OP's kid is that she seems to want to avoid the super-selective schools, but is also zeroing in on very selective LAC which might "be considered part of T25." This isn't exactly going to help her avoid the selectivity problem. If you want to avoid the competition, that is a fine goal, but then don't keep obsessing with rankings. I agree that she should focus on finding schools that meet her criteria and have higher acceptance rates. Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, etc. are all very selective as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t trade the undergrad classroom experience I had at my SLAC for anything and am a huge fan of LAC’s. However, it’s not for everyone and there’s a lot to be said for people who navigate their way academically in bigger university environments and take full advantage of the opportunities there. There’s no one “right” undergrad academic experience.

+1 one of my kids went to a LAC and one to a big state U. Both got what they wanted from the college experience. I think it helped that big-school kid was in a relatively small major + worked as a TA so got more faculty engagement that way. And, LAC-kid is in the school's largest major so there is a good variety of faculty and resources for a really rich experience.

For OP's kid who doesn't want to apply to super-selective schools, I think that's totally reasonable. Why put so much effort and stress into winning a lottery ticket. Find schools that meet your criteria that have acceptance rates of at least 30%.

One concern I had for OP's kid is that she seems to want to avoid the super-selective schools, but is also zeroing in on very selective LAC which might "be considered part of T25." This isn't exactly going to help her avoid the selectivity problem. If you want to avoid the competition, that is a fine goal, but then don't keep obsessing with rankings. I agree that she should focus on finding schools that meet her criteria and have higher acceptance rates. Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, etc. are all very selective as well.

Or perhaps I misunderstood and OP's kid is trying to avoid the top SLAC as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t trade the undergrad classroom experience I had at my SLAC for anything and am a huge fan of LAC’s. However, it’s not for everyone and there’s a lot to be said for people who navigate their way academically in bigger university environments and take full advantage of the opportunities there. There’s no one “right” undergrad academic experience.

+1 one of my kids went to a LAC and one to a big state U. Both got what they wanted from the college experience. I think it helped that big-school kid was in a relatively small major + worked as a TA so got more faculty engagement that way. And, LAC-kid is in the school's largest major so there is a good variety of faculty and resources for a really rich experience.

For OP's kid who doesn't want to apply to super-selective schools, I think that's totally reasonable. Why put so much effort and stress into winning a lottery ticket. Find schools that meet your criteria that have acceptance rates of at least 30%.

One concern I had for OP's kid is that she seems to want to avoid the super-selective schools, but is also zeroing in on very selective LAC which might "be considered part of T25." This isn't exactly going to help her avoid the selectivity problem. If you want to avoid the competition, that is a fine goal, but then don't keep obsessing with rankings. I agree that she should focus on finding schools that meet her criteria and have higher acceptance rates. Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, etc. are all very selective as well.

Or perhaps I misunderstood and OP's kid is trying to avoid the top SLAC as well.

yes that's how I read it too. OP's kid is trying to avoid the tippy top SLACs that also have stampede of high strung kids competing to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very odd that some LAC supporters criticize Johns Hopkins University. JHU has, by far, the largest research & development (R&D) budget of any US school and probably of any school in the world. There is no LAC that is even close to JHU or to any Top 15 university excluding Dartmouth College & Brown University--an other of which are over-rated.

If LACs were ranked with National Universities, none--according to the Wall Street Journal & The Times Higher Education published rankings, would fall among the top 20 schools.

Williams would 1000% - and probably higher than JHU, which some would say is a one trick pony

Now you're just be silly & childish. Compare the research budget of JHU to any other school in the world. JHU's 2023 fiscal year research budget was over $3.8 billion ($3,800,000,000+). Over $3.8 billion for just one year. Williams College's R&D budget for the same fiscal year (2023) was a paltry $3.448 million (less than one-tenth of one percent of JHU's 2023 R&D budget!)

JHU's $3,800,000,000+ budget versus Williams College's $3,448,000 R&D budget. They are in two different leagues.

They have two different functions. And, Williams is far superior at it’s mission which is undergraduate education.

Maybe, maybe not. What is Williams College's mission ? JHU undergraduates are hard-working and successful.

I don't think that anyone would say the JHU students are brilliant, hardworking, and successful; they are. But the implication that SLACs are somehow a "lesser league that JHU is just obtuse. Focusing on research budgets, is just obtuse (undergraduates are a nuisance for researchers, they are not wanted). The outsized success of top SLACs across the board in Phd programs, IB, Consulting, Finance, top law school admissions, med school admissions, etc. relative to their size is indisputable. It is a superior model for undergraduate education.

DP. Look, I am not sure the point of this debate. I am a JHU alumni. Spouse attended an Ivy. We visited Williams and were impressed, though it would be a tough decision since kid is very research focused. But at the end of the day, my kid would be lucky to attend either JHU, any of the Ivies, or Williams. They all different schools, all with pros and cons. There is no "one superior" model, and silly to debate without considering specifics of the student, as well as career goals.

This is one thing the research university parents always fail to get- research is everywhere at top LACs and it’s for your kids, not a grad student, not a Postdoc, not a staff research assistant, not an affiliated scholar. It’s research that undergraduate students can advance a project on and get publications on. DD goes to Williams and is on her 4th publication from her lab as a senior. She also has two publications with Yale from working with a researcher during the summers. DD’s older friends all got top research fellowships and go to top graduate schools. It’s super cool that these research universities have all the fancy equipment and top researchers, but most students aren’t getting into those labs and their projects aren’t productive.

Sorry, but both my husband and I are in research and so we are not clueless about this topic. Note that you had to point out your kid did research at Yale during the summer. Publications are not all the same. Research labs do not all have the same impact in the field. Ph.D. programs are becoming increasingly competitive, and having a research-oriented mentor who is a leader in the field and who is also at the school you actually attend is very valuable. This does not mean you cannot get into a top Ph.D. program from a good LAC, but for a kid who already knows what kind of research they want to pursue, a research university has the advantage. You seem to want to claim that LAC have ALL the advantages, which seems a bit delusional. I will gladly admit that R1s lose to LAC in some respects. But anyone here claiming that one type of school is superior for all types of students is bonkers.

+1
Also a professor, "known" name R1 private: research for undergrads is widely available even in non-stem areas. Publications, which need longterm research, are not uncommon for undergrads. Top schools prioritize undergrad research, and have leaders in many fields. UCB and other top publics offer the same but with the higher ratio of undergrads to lab spots, research is typically much harder to get than at the top-research privates.
LACs do not compare at all on research. They can't. Summer R1 research (REUs )prioritize students from LACs and other primarily-undergrad institutions but with the huge funding crisis many REUs were cut, even at top schools like Yale! The situation for LAC students got a lot worse summer of 2025 and will not rebound any time soon.

I'm surprised a professor would be this biased towards r1 institutions. R1's tend to have projects for undergrads that aren't going to lead to publication; it is a complete waste of time giving an undergrad a publishable project when you can give them busy work for their CV and assign your grad students or staff to a project. I don't think the previous poster said that LACs have better research. No where did they really imply it.

There's really no proof for your final line. We don't know the future, and many REUs ran last year. Sure, some were cut, but new ones also started like the HHMI research program. Research being widely available isn't really indicative that you can get it. Many students at research institutions. Sure, if you're at Harvard, it is amazing to be an undergrad there and take part in the best research, but most people go to state universities where you do have to work a bit for it, and it may be difficult to be put on a project that will actually lead to publication. I'm an academic in physics. Research universities objectively have the best facilities and best resources, but our best applicants are often split between top universities and top liberal arts colleges. I've had students come in from Pomona, Haverford, Berkeley, MIT, Swarthmore, UCLA, Princeton, and Williams. None are more trained than the other.

I am the other prof before the PP you responded to. I don't disagree with everything you have said, and sure great students can come to Ph.D. programs from LAC, but I really take issue with the bolded statement, which seems like a fiction parents have created here. Who has time to create busy work for undergrads that leads nowhere? Science is collaborative. The graduate students and postdocs are never your kid's competitors. They are your kid's other potential mentors, and they will help train your kid. Undergrads seldom (almost never) have the experience or expertise to take off on their own amazing project and get first authorship (unless perhaps it is for a very underwhelming journal). You WANT your kid to be a part of a vibrant lab with grad students and post docs who all help train your kid in the methods and logic of an established line of research. And if your kid is hardworking, enthusiastic, bright, and able to contribute to the lab, they get their name on the papers too. But more importantly, they will have gained a lot of real research skills and knowledge that they can take with them.

Many of my peers. It’s service. Nowhere in doing service do you need to give undergrads a meaningful experience- just lab work. I’ve had many conversation with peers who don’t have much interest in giving back to the community and working with undergrads, but do give them some background already proven work so they can bug off the following semester.

It sounds like you have a very positive experience with professors and their desire to work with undergrads, but in physics, this doesn’t really exist- we want to work with people who will actually help produce results and will have novel ideas. The undergrad curriculum is too behind for a student to reasonably contribute before they’re a senior and hopefully in grad classes