Science at Liberal Arts Colleges: A Better Education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Source - 20 years tenured prof running large research lab."

+1 30 years in and running R1 science

So no data. Got it. Must be some lab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, I would say the answer is no. Large universities have incredible resources and opportunities for science. But if your kid is not confident and gives up easily, then I do think the nurturing environment of a Slac might work better for them. For med school SLACs might have an edge as big schools can be more competitive and sink or swim. But if your kid is scrappy, outgoing and doesn’t get defeated easily, you can’t compare the science education at schools like Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, etc. with small colleges

You packed an impressive number of passive-aggressive hate on SLACs into that. Truly a DCUM special right there.

It’s funny that is all you took away from my post. I went to a SLAC and enjoyed my time there. And then went to a science PhD program at a top school and was blown away by the background, experience and confidence of kids coming from larger universities. Some of these kids had taken grad level courses and worked in the labs of Nobel prize winners. I did fine in the end but it was a rough beginning. My best friend went to Wellesley and then to MIT for a physics PhD. She almost flunked out of the PhD program because the physics was so much harder at MIT than Wellesley. It is what it is but SLACs do work better for some kids. Other kids find them too small and claustrophobic

https://www.nature.com/news/where-nobel-winners-get-their-start-1.20757

I see two SLACS on this list and zero large public research universities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, I would say the answer is no. Large universities have incredible resources and opportunities for science. But if your kid is not confident and gives up easily, then I do think the nurturing environment of a Slac might work better for them. For med school SLACs might have an edge as big schools can be more competitive and sink or swim. But if your kid is scrappy, outgoing and doesn’t get defeated easily, you can’t compare the science education at schools like Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, etc. with small colleges

You packed an impressive number of passive-aggressive hate on SLACs into that. Truly a DCUM special right there.

It’s funny that is all you took away from my post. I went to a SLAC and enjoyed my time there. And then went to a science PhD program at a top school and was blown away by the background, experience and confidence of kids coming from larger universities. Some of these kids had taken grad level courses and worked in the labs of Nobel prize winners. I did fine in the end but it was a rough beginning. My best friend went to Wellesley and then to MIT for a physics PhD. She almost flunked out of the PhD program because the physics was so much harder at MIT than Wellesley. It is what it is but SLACs do work better for some kids. Other kids find them too small and claustrophobic

https://www.nature.com/news/where-nobel-winners-get-their-start-1.20757

I see two SLACS on this list and zero large public research universities

École Normale Supérieure and Cal Tech are not SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, I would say the answer is no. Large universities have incredible resources and opportunities for science. But if your kid is not confident and gives up easily, then I do think the nurturing environment of a Slac might work better for them. For med school SLACs might have an edge as big schools can be more competitive and sink or swim. But if your kid is scrappy, outgoing and doesn’t get defeated easily, you can’t compare the science education at schools like Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, etc. with small colleges

You packed an impressive number of passive-aggressive hate on SLACs into that. Truly a DCUM special right there.

It’s funny that is all you took away from my post. I went to a SLAC and enjoyed my time there. And then went to a science PhD program at a top school and was blown away by the background, experience and confidence of kids coming from larger universities. Some of these kids had taken grad level courses and worked in the labs of Nobel prize winners. I did fine in the end but it was a rough beginning. My best friend went to Wellesley and then to MIT for a physics PhD. She almost flunked out of the PhD program because the physics was so much harder at MIT than Wellesley. It is what it is but SLACs do work better for some kids. Other kids find them too small and claustrophobic

https://www.nature.com/news/where-nobel-winners-get-their-start-1.20757

I see two SLACS on this list and zero large public research universities

École Normale Supérieure and Cal Tech are not SLACs.

Swarthmore and Amherst are though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Source - 20 years tenured prof running large research lab.

Ah, so you're a data person, I hope. Let's see your data.
Because all the NSF data shows that SLAC graduates far, far outnumber their their large university peers when it comes to actually earning PhDs in STEM fields. If there's anyone struggling to complete the PhD, it's not SLAC alum.

Okay, for fun (and out of curiosity), I did a quick analysis of the people who have won the highest mid-career medal in my field over the past ten years:
Private R1 undergrads: 41%
State R1 undergrads: 50%
SLAC undergrads: 9%

There you go.

Given that nearly 80% of undergrads go to public colleges and universities, meh. Are you always this bad at analysis? Tell me you didn’t hone this skill at an R1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Source - 20 years tenured prof running large research lab.

Ah, so you're a data person, I hope. Let's see your data.
Because all the NSF data shows that SLAC graduates far, far outnumber their their large university peers when it comes to actually earning PhDs in STEM fields. If there's anyone struggling to complete the PhD, it's not SLAC alum.

Okay, for fun (and out of curiosity), I did a quick analysis of the people who have won the highest mid-career medal in my field over the past ten years:
Private R1 undergrads: 41%
State R1 undergrads: 50%
SLAC undergrads: 9%

There you go.

Given that nearly 80% of undergrads go to public colleges and universities, meh. Are you always this bad at analysis? Tell me you didn’t hone this skill at an R1.

Dear god. I sincerely hope that the "field" that the earlier PP is in is NOT statistics or math-related.

[Anonymous]

Okay, I tried. You people don't want blunt opinions and perspectives - you want confirmation that SLACs are the be all and end all of undergraduate science education. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I tried. You people don't want blunt opinions and perspectives - you want confirmation that SLACs are the be all and end all of undergraduate science education. Good luck.

for someone who claims to be involved in science education, you'd think data would be more important that opinions and perspective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I tried. You people don't want blunt opinions and perspectives - you want confirmation that SLACs are the be all and end all of undergraduate science education. Good luck.

for someone who claims to be involved in science education, you'd think data would be more important that opinions and perspective

Look, there are several practicing scientists, including one with a SLAC undergrad degree, telling you about how things actually work. And you all don't want to hear it. I honestly don't understand - what even is your question here?

[Anonymous]

And that Nature article references a still-unpublished study (and the second author was forced to resign), but feel free to cherry-pick whatever backs up your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, I would say the answer is no. Large universities have incredible resources and opportunities for science. But if your kid is not confident and gives up easily, then I do think the nurturing environment of a Slac might work better for them. For med school SLACs might have an edge as big schools can be more competitive and sink or swim. But if your kid is scrappy, outgoing and doesn’t get defeated easily, you can’t compare the science education at schools like Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, etc. with small colleges

You packed an impressive number of passive-aggressive hate on SLACs into that. Truly a DCUM special right there.

It’s funny that is all you took away from my post. I went to a SLAC and enjoyed my time there. And then went to a science PhD program at a top school and was blown away by the background, experience and confidence of kids coming from larger universities. Some of these kids had taken grad level courses and worked in the labs of Nobel prize winners. I did fine in the end but it was a rough beginning. My best friend went to Wellesley and then to MIT for a physics PhD. She almost flunked out of the PhD program because the physics was so much harder at MIT than Wellesley. It is what it is but SLACs do work better for some kids. Other kids find them too small and claustrophobic

Where is your data? Because right now, your dataset is n=2 (you and your friend).

NP here. I’m sure everyone would agree with the basic point that Physics is much harder at MIT than Wellesley which is a top rated SLAC. Wellesley is a wonderful school but you cannot compare its STEM rigor or course offerings to MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I tried. You people don't want blunt opinions and perspectives - you want confirmation that SLACs are the be all and end all of undergraduate science education. Good luck.

for someone who claims to be involved in science education, you'd think data would be more important that opinions and perspective

Look, there are several practicing scientists, including one with a SLAC undergrad degree, telling you about how things actually work. And you all don't want to hear it. I honestly don't understand - what even is your question here?

You honestly don’t understand. You finally wrote something that made sense.

[Anonymous]

If you come out with a STEM degree at a school like UC Berkeley, that is incredibly impressive. Much more so than Middlebury or Colby or Swarthmore. UC Berkeley STEM is cutthroat and hard as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you come out with a STEM degree at a school like UC Berkeley, that is incredibly impressive. Much more so than Middlebury or Colby or Swarthmore. UC Berkeley STEM is cutthroat and hard as hell.

You think Swarthmore STEM isn’t hard? Okay buddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you come out with a STEM degree at a school like UC Berkeley, that is incredibly impressive. Much more so than Middlebury or Colby or Swarthmore. UC Berkeley STEM is cutthroat and hard as hell.

Sounds like you are describing a tour in a combat zone.

Not everyone's dream for their kid's undergrad experience.

But hey, it is what impresses you.