LACs are overrated.

[Anonymous]

Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

PP, yours is an Incredibly biased, narrow minded opinion. It’s about the journey and SLAC give a great alternative path with exceptional academic and student life experiences.

Only the E in STEM is engineering. I'd wager that a school like Amherst has a higher percentage of graduates in STEM than most large public universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

She got a liberal arts education from William and Mary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

Of course it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

She got a liberal arts education from William and Mary.

You can get a liberal arts education from most any research university as well, so it doesn't exactly help the case of the LAC boosters...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

[/b]Of course it is.[b]

[b]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

Not really, graduates of the three schools you mentioned will have the same grad school and employment opportunities of an HYPS grad

Keep hyping. They are not worth $80,000 per year in this age.

I’m sure Williams will be fine without your kid

There is literally no 17 year old in America that will make or break a university

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

She got a liberal arts education from William and Mary.

You can get a liberal arts education from most any research university as well, so it doesn't exactly help the case of the LAC boosters...

Where did you learn to home your laser-sharp arguments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

Not really, graduates of the three schools you mentioned will have the same grad school and employment opportunities of an HYPS grad

Keep hyping. They are not worth $80,000 per year in this age.

I’m sure Williams will be fine without your kid

There is literally no 17 year old in America that will make or break a university

Athletes may be different. Ralph Sampson, Patrick Ewing, Bo Jackson, a series of basketball players at different points at Duke and UNC....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah so the LAC boosters have switched tack from "we're superior to all of you" to "well, we're just different." Taking notes.

It’s a reasonable response to the assertion that LACs are “overrated.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

I have a bachelors degree in biochemistry and a PhD in chemistry. My bachelors was at a LAC and my PhD was at a well regarded flagship state university. I did my postdoc at Berkeley I am currently a professor at a large state school, although I have friends who work in biotech, big chemical companies like Dow, pharma, government labs like the NIH, national labs and research institutes, in IP law, in public policy, and at a range of academic institutions from places like Stanford to liberal arts colleges to community colleges. They went to a range of schools for undergrad.

I have zero regrets about my undergrad education. I know plenty of people who went to state schools or elite technical schools like MIT/Caltech for undergrad, and there are many roads to Rome. The advantage I had was really close relationships with faculty who were excellent teachers and mentors. My junior/senior level coursework was in very high detail, taught essentially at the level I teach our first year graduate students and my freshman/sophomore coursework was taught on average at a higher degree of rigor than it is taught at my current institution. Because there were no grad students, I had a lot of autonomy over my research directions (not being a pipette monkey for a postdoc), although there were some resource limitations and the pace of research was slower. There are certainly pros to going to research universities in terms of the sheer number of opportunities available for motivated students. But the pros to going to a SLAC are high as well, especially for a student interested in getting a PhD. My friends who have gone on to teach at SLACS--especially the more highly ranked ones--are very smart, driven people who would have succeeded at a range of paths but felt like they wanted a career where they would work more closely with students in the classroom and in terms of mentorship. I think a lot of people unfamiliar with LACs and higher education don't understand the depth of STEM curricula at most of the more highly ranked LACs.

I don't think Georgia Tech would have been the right fit for me at the time as an undergrad, nor do I think I would have gotten a better education. It would have been a different education with different pros and cons.

My DC is a chemistry major / math minor at a LAC and wants a PhD in chemistry because she is interested in working in industry (drug development). She is getting great research experience and has a wonderful mentor/advisor who knows her well.

No complaints here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It would have been a different education with different pros and cons."

This. I don't understand why some are so adamant that LACs are overrated or big Us are overrated. They are just DIFFERENT. And kids are different so it's great that there are options.

No. We should all still drive black Model Ts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

Of course it is.

Where is the dividing line? Size? Curriculum? Graduate schools? If you attended UVA's College of Arts & Sciences, did you attend the Liberal Arts college within the university? If not that, what is UVA's College of Arts and Sciences? What is the difference vs. Amherst other than size? (I recognize someone will say cost, but put that aside for now.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that this will convince the crazed LAC-haters, but here's an interesting perspective from last Sunday's NYT interview with Andi Owen, the CEO of Herman Miller, who majored in art history at William & Mary:

Did getting a liberal arts degree have an impact on your career?

It's helped me in a lot of ways. I learned a lot about people. I learned a lot about history. I learned a lot about observation. I've always approached any job I've ever had as a generalist and an observer of human nature.

Some people would say I'm not good at any one thing. I'm sort of OK at a lot of things. And that's OK. I've surrounded myself with people that are a lot smarter than me. But I have a little bit of a broader point of view, and an experience that doesn't necessarily pigeonhole me into thinking one thing or another.

William and Mary is not an LAC.

Of course it is.

Where is the dividing line? Size? Curriculum? Graduate schools? If you attended UVA's College of Arts & Sciences, did you attend the Liberal Arts college within the university? If not that, what is UVA's College of Arts and Sciences? What is the difference vs. Amherst other than size? (I recognize someone will say cost, but put that aside for now.)

Size is a huge difference. Other than a couple of freshman year survey courses, I don't think DC at Amherst had a class with more than 20 students, and some only had around 10 students. Classwork and papers were meticulously graded, edited and rewritten. DC was a science/math major who became a really good writer (Amherst has an open curriculum and DC chose to take history and lit classes that interested her - other STEM students might not make the same choice). DC also formed close relationships with some profs - working on research with them, having meals with them, etc.

Students also are more closely involved in what happens academically at the school. DC helped interview potential new professors, worked with a professor to create a new class, and TA'd in classes (for pay) from sophomore year on.

As PP said on another thread, the school treated the students like they were lucky to have them there.