Should LACs no longer be considered the model of excellence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:) certain LACs get fetishized as elite because they connote old money. But rather than admit that, they sell/are sold this line that their kids will get this exceptional education because the school is small, has no grad students, and doesn't teach anything that seems practical.

If by practical, you mean manual labor or administrative jobs, you are right. However, top LACs do provide an educational experience that is indeed superior in many ways to larger universities for *undergraduates*. I would be impossible for a college student at a top LAC to graduate without having written a number of long papers, participated in small discussion seminars, or not being known by several professors fairly well. OTOH, for many students at even top state universities, small seminars are highly unusual, writing long (25pp+) papers is rare, and you can get through without ever having known a professor on a personal basis. Having graduated from AWS, and then going onto get my PhD at a "public Ivy" I saw first hand how different the undergraduate experience is in those settings. In many ways, the graduate of the SLAC is far better prepared for entering the "real world" because you cannot graduate successfully by coasting through large classes and just showing up for the final exam.

Of course, students graduate from large state schools and do very well. But, the quality of the academic experience is generally going to be much better for college students at a top LAC compared to a top state school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a similar experience at my undergrad (UW-Madison). The b-school was made up almost entirely of wealthy "coasties" (aka California and the northeast), and wealthy suburbanites from Chicago/Milwaukee/Minneapolis. Pretty exclusive crowd. I felt like a fish out of water the first semester with my middle class WI background.

You get many affluent students whose fathers are in "business" (corporate execs or business owner) and when they apply to colleges they don't know what to study, aren't particularly interested in academics, so go into the business track as the perceived quicker route to a successful future in "business" (just like daddy). Outside a handful of schools like Wharton, most undergraduate business degrees are hardly bastions of intellectualism or genius. At many schools the undergraduate economics major will be harder than the business major.

This is fine, FYI. Not being judgmental. We all need something different from the college experience.

LOL. Okay, yeah. Go tell the Wisconsin School of Business students they're only there to "be like daddy" (wtf).

Wisconsin is a great university. The business school is top notch. And like most business schools a large percentage of classes must be taken outside of the business school. Students take classes in humanities, language, sciences, etc. These are smart students coming into the school and they have a well rounded education when they graduate.

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to be shallow and say that every single LAC is better than every single university in terms of educational quality. There are some very good ones out there that are easily comparable- Dartmouth, Rice. But in general- LACs do offer a better education. And there's a single good reason for that. The faculty are hired primarily for teaching potential, not research potential (as the universities do). There's an interesting article that I don't completely agree with in its premise, but it has a very example of how the search process differs: https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/colleges-that-are-probably-better-than-harvard/

"Perhaps the stark difference between the commitment to undergraduate teaching at Pomona and Harvard is best illustrated in the two school’s own words. In a recent job posting for an instructor in Physics and Astronomy, Pomona declared that “candidates must have a strong commitment to high-quality undergraduate teaching in a liberal arts environment, and those with significant teaching experience are especially encouraged to apply.” Compare this to a recent Harvard posting for an instructor in the Life Sciences, which emphasized skills around “supervising and training a staff of approximately 30 teaching fellows, as well as a team of undergraduates who run weekly help sessions.”

I'm not going to deny the importance of hiring advanced researchers, as well as the education impact they have. The textbooks and materials LACs use will likely come from the leading researchers at all sorts of universities. But how much does it really mean to hear those teachings directly from the source- who may not be good at communicating those ideas to a diverse group of students- than from one who has considerable experience in doing so?

If your point in attending college is gaining a singular practical education, by all means, do so. I agree that going to an LAC is not the best fit. If your purpose is to gain a broad education that will position you well into just about anything (see- Williams http://www.thecollegesolution.com/a-look-at/), a LAC will offer better teaching in general. Are LACs the only schools that can provide that? Obviously not. I hold honor programs at State U's to great reputation for providing an affordable LAC-like experience. But in general, the quality of teaching is higher at a LAC than at a university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, friend does not seem to "get" the culture or values of elite LACs. When I read complaints about how there is no business degree offered at a LAC, that's very telling. Tippy top LACs (e.g., AWS) don't offer business or finance or marketing degrees. Instead, students major in economics, and then go onto Wall St or McKinsey. It's a class and culture difference, not one of quality.

Every college has an economics major. Why not go to one that also offers finance and marketing?

Because finance and marketing classes are vocational classes. They do not help the student develop the kind of analytical, critical thinking and clear writing skills that e.g. an economics major does.

exactly. lol at the idea that Amherst needs to offer a marketing major! No doubt some Amherst students will end up in marketing and advertising, but it will be via the actual intellectual underpinnings of the profession (eg math, computer science, psychology, art).

This is ridiculous outdated thinking. Most of the business schooos require students to take a wide core of classes and many of the business students double major in a subject outside of the business school. We have been researching business schools all over this country. All of the programs will produce intellectual students. Business schools are not vocational schools.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think your friend is focused on the wrong things; but if that is what matters to him, then by all means he should not choose a LAC for his kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the fact that 40% of many LAC student bodies are recruited athletes turns off some students? I'm sure that affects the intellectual atmosphere.

True. Especially because the LACs are so small. Just because your wealthy Lacrosse playing son gets into a tiny LAC in the woods does not make him more of an intellectual than a hard working business student double majoring in computer science or English at a large diverse state university.

[Anonymous]

I'm not advocating a practical college education -- I'm saying that the mere absence of an obvious practical component doesn't make something more intellectual. Nor does the presence of an obvious practical component mean something is not intellectual or doesn't involve/require critical thinking or clear writing. Which seemed to be the logic implicit in some of the earlier posts (e.g. Economics vs marketing).

IRL, I'm not seeing any evidence
and that includes academic contexts

I think that's for a

[Anonymous]

IRL (which has included teaching graduate students), I'm not seeing any evidence that graduates of LACs (and I'm generally looking at people who graduated from the most prestigious ones) are better educated than people who got their undergrad degrees at major research universities (public or private).

There are a number of reasons why that make sense. The people who become professors were grad students. Grad students aren't trained to teach. In the quest for tenure-track jobs, IME, the grad students who are the best teachers don't seek out jobs at LACs -- most are looking at prestige, resources, location, spousal employability, and are of course at the whim of what positions are available when they come on the market. So it's not as if LACs corner the market on good teachers or even have first pick.

That said, one could certainly argue that LACs won't retain profs who are bad teachers and research universities will. I'm not going to deny that there are profs who do important research but can't teach. But I'll also point out that "good teaching" at a LAC typically involves getting good course evaluations which may reflect a host of factors other than the educational progress/improvement made be students (which isn't measured). It's also the case that academics who stay at LACs tend to be "the" expert in their field, aren't continually challenged by the influx of (grad) students who have been well-trained by others, and end up having to teach the same basic courses year after year (because they need to be taught and there's nobody else there to do it). It's easier, more fun, and safer to be the cool/popular prof in this environment than to be the demanding/challenging prof.

WRT the student experience, being forced to write papers in college doesn't make you a good writer, especially when the lowest grade you're likely to get, regardless of what you turn in, is a B. Similarly, participating in small seminars doesn't make you a critical thinker. In fact, it makes lots of kids good bullshitters. They quickly discover that they can get by without doing the reading in many classes if they talk regularly in class and figure out which are the magic words the instructor wants to hear. All that's before we get to the fact that kids who go to universities also have plenty of access to seminars and courses that require writing. So in both contexts, the kids who want to improve their writing and to think more critically can do so.

Again, my point isn't that a smart hard-working kid can't get an excellent education at a LAC. And I'd certainly acknowledge that there are kids for whom a LAC is the best educational choice. What I don't buy is that LACs are the gold standard of what undergraduate education should be. To me, they're more like glorified high schools.

[Anonymous]

I think the fact that some 80%+ of graduates at many LACs end up attending graduate school is pretty telling of the intellectual vibe they have. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing. But when I think of intellectualism, I think of grad school and academia, and the LACs are over-represented there.

The difference in assignments between top universities/LACs and others is striking- just see the chart in this article: http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2015/10/23/how-hard-is-swarthmore/ Obviously not a perfect metric, but it goes to show the level of expectation and detail these top colleges require.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the fact that 40% of many LAC student bodies are recruited athletes turns off some students? I'm sure that affects the intellectual atmosphere.

True. Especially because the LACs are so small. Just because your wealthy Lacrosse playing son gets into a tiny LAC in the woods does not make him more of an intellectual than a hard working business student double majoring in computer science or English at a large diverse state university.

But, I would bet a lot of money that the typical lacrosse player at a SLAC will do a lot more academic work in smaller classes under the direct supervision of a professor compared to a peer at a large state university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IRL (which has included teaching graduate students), I'm not seeing any evidence that graduates of LACs (and I'm generally looking at people who graduated from the most prestigious ones) are better educated than people who got their undergrad degrees at major research universities (public or private).

There are a number of reasons why that make sense. The people who become professors were grad students. Grad students aren't trained to teach. In the quest for tenure-track jobs, IME, the grad students who are the best teachers don't seek out jobs at LACs -- most are looking at prestige, resources, location, spousal employability, and are of course at the whim of what positions are available when they come on the market. So it's not as if LACs corner the market on good teachers or even have first pick.

That said, one could certainly argue that LACs won't retain profs who are bad teachers and research universities will. I'm not going to deny that there are profs who do important research but can't teach. But I'll also point out that "good teaching" at a LAC typically involves getting good course evaluations which may reflect a host of factors other than the educational progress/improvement made be students (which isn't measured). It's also the case that academics who stay at LACs tend to be "the" expert in their field, aren't continually challenged by the influx of (grad) students who have been well-trained by others, and end up having to teach the same basic courses year after year (because they need to be taught and there's nobody else there to do it). It's easier, more fun, and safer to be the cool/popular prof in this environment than to be the demanding/challenging prof.

WRT the student experience, being forced to write papers in college doesn't make you a good writer, especially when the lowest grade you're likely to get, regardless of what you turn in, is a B. Similarly, participating in small seminars doesn't make you a critical thinker. In fact, it makes lots of kids good bullshitters. They quickly discover that they can get by without doing the reading in many classes if they talk regularly in class and figure out which are the magic words the instructor wants to hear. All that's before we get to the fact that kids who go to universities also have plenty of access to seminars and courses that require writing. So in both contexts, the kids who want to improve their writing and to think more critically can do so.

Again, my point isn't that a smart hard-working kid can't get an excellent education at a LAC. And I'd certainly acknowledge that there are kids for whom a LAC is the best educational choice. What I don't buy is that LACs are the gold standard of what undergraduate education should be. To me, they're more like glorified high schools.

As a tenured professor at a large research university (with significant experience at a SLAC), I would definitely send my child to a SLAC over a state university. As one PP noted above, there are no incentives for faculty at research universities to teach well, assignments are short because the student load is large, many intro courses are effectively taught by TAs. Being forced to write papers IMHO makes one a far better writer than a student who has never written one at all. Like any other skill, it must be practiced. A student who writes a lot of papers is going to be on average than one who does not (or perhaps cannot!). Small seminars may up a student's BS-ability, but in a small seminar, you are accountable for the material. If you are at AWS, your fellow students are quickly going to sniff out who's done the work and who hasn't. You can only BS for so long--it is really hard to do for four years.

As for numbers, just google the schools that send the most graduates onto PhD programs and other graduate programs. They are uniformly top LACs alongside places like MIT or CalTech. When you are in a college environment where most of the kids are aiming to pursue graduate work, it changes the intellectual environment and rigor.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your detailed response. Let me respond to these as a graduate of a top LAC.

In the quest for tenure-track jobs, IME, the grad students who are the best teachers don't seek out jobs at LACs

In my experience, this is not true. Many of my professors at my LAC have won national distinctions for teaching. Some examples: the Deborah and Franklin Tepper Haimo Award for Distinguished Teaching of Mathematics, widely considered the best teaching award in math. Distinguished Teaching Award from the American Sociological Association. My favorite professor won the coveted Princeton Graduate Teaching Award as a grad student.

I think you're equating the best researchers with the best teachers. They seldom overlap. The LACs often turn down better researchers for whomever is perceived as
the better teacher. This doesn't happen at the universities. Also, keep in mind that tenure track at places like A/W/S/P pays incredibly well- better than most universities, save the tippy top. They do attract tons of applicants. Most of their searches for one professor get over 200 applications.

It's easier, more fun, and safer to be the cool/popular prof in this environment than to be the demanding/challenging prof.

The perception I get from this and your preceding paragraph- please correct me if I'm incorrect- is that you believe that by having grad students, professors at universities are forced to adapt the material and make it rigorous, while LAC professors don't have that pressure and keep the courses easy to appease to course ratings. In my experience, that has not been the case. Every professor I've had would bring the current perspectives to keep us as up-to-date on the field as possible. And my courses were almost never easy. I echo what the above poster mentioned about their experience. Lots of lengthy papers, discussions to lead and manage, independent coursework. I actually think my least favorite professors were those who weren't rigorous. Made me feel like I wasn't getting my worth.

WRT the student experience, being forced to write papers in college doesn't make you a good writer, especially when the lowest grade you're likely to get, regardless of what you turn in, is a B. Similarly, participating in small seminars doesn't make you a critical thinker. In fact, it makes lots of kids good bullshitters. They quickly discover that they can get by without doing the reading in many classes if they talk regularly in class and figure out which are the magic words the instructor wants to hear. All that's before we get to the fact that kids who go to universities also have plenty of access to seminars and courses that require writing. So in both contexts, the kids who want to improve their writing and to think more critically can do so.

I went to a LAC notorious for grade inflation (you read that right), and my first college paper in the required writing seminar, despite my getting a 5 on AP Lit and Lang, was a C+. Pretty similar thing happened to everyone else in the course. I ended up with a B+ in the course, but that was because it made me a lot more serious about improvement. Here's something to consider- the LACs are incredibly supportive. When students get low grades, professors will give it to them as a learning lesson and work with them to improve. If there is improvement- and the kids at these LACs are cream of the crop, so there almost always is- the grades will rise. My final papers were an A, and they genuinely felt much better than my first.

On the whole, I can agree with these points to a general extent. But the kids who are admitted to the top LACs can't be the kids you're referencing. Most of these colleges turn down 1 in 7 or 8 applicants for reasons largely related to how the recommendations or essays come across, not test scores/GPA (everyone's comparable on the latter). I'm not going to deny that there weren't people like your example in some of my courses. But they were disliked by most of us and called out by the professor for not critically engaging or reading. Most of us took our work extremely seriously. I sat next to my peers, and they'd bring 30 pages of handwritten notes for the reading.

On the whole- and this is from sitting in on discussions at my LAC and my state university- the intellectual robustness felt much more apparent at my LAC. Having communicated with many of my friends who did choose a university, I feel really fortunate to have gotten the academic experiences I did. One thing a lot of people don't consider is that it's not just about the teachers, but the students too. I arguably learned just as much from my incredibly bright peers as I did from my professors. That's not something you readily get at many state schools.

To me, they're more like glorified high schools.

Honestly, I'm curious about what high school you attended, because I went to a public one ranked in the top 30 by US News and my educational experience was so much better at my LAC that it's honestly a little funny looking back at it. If you're thinking of Phillips Andover or Choate Rosemary, well, yes, LACs are glorified boarding schools, but those schools are known for providing the best high school education in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact that some 80%+ of graduates at many LACs end up attending graduate school is pretty telling of the intellectual vibe they have. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing. But when I think of intellectualism, I think of grad school and academia, and the LACs are over-represented there.

The difference in assignments between top universities/LACs and others is striking- just see the chart in this article: http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2015/10/23/how-hard-is-swarthmore/ Obviously not a perfect metric, but it goes to show the level of expectation and detail these top colleges require.

80% isn't grad school per se, it's mostly professional schools. And undergrads/their families go in with that plan -- college won't render me job-ready for the kind of career I want, so what I'm looking is the school that gets me into a good JD/MD/MBA program which I anticipate being able to afford. So I need a good GPA and connections/prestigious name. And maybe good advising to shepherd me through the process. (Will need good test scores too, but that's not about undergrad education).

Interesting thing about the article you cite is that the average writing workload in a semester-long writing-based course is 18.6 pages. And that's Swarthmore, which is considered one of the most (if not the most) intellectually demanding LAC. So no, not a big difference in amounts of writing involved. As I've already said, I don't think that that's necessarily a good metric, but it makes me question the LACs-make-kids-write-more claim.

[Anonymous]

Yes, you're right, but the point still remains that it is graduates of LACs that are heavily represented for PhD production (http://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded)

Keep in mind that that's the writing load of the average intro course, not upper-levels. I didn't go to Swarthmore, but a peer school, and I had comparable levels of writing at my intro courses and 25+ page papers in my later ones. My thesis was actually a little shorter than one of my papers for a seminar course (70 pages or so, and yes I got extensive feedback on it).

The point I wanted to highlight was more about Swarthmore vs. Drexel, not Swarthmore vs. Columbia. I think top LACs and top universities are equally rigorous. And I think they are more rigorous than other universities.

[Anonymous]

10:07 -- I'm not making a state university vs LAC argument. I'm making a LAC vs major research university argument. (The only time I've mentioned public schools was to rebut the assumption that the tradeoff would be state school + higher GPA vs "reach" LAC vs lower GPA. Hard to tell, I know, with so many people posting and all anonymously).

So the question doesn't have to be Berkeley vs Amherst. It could be Harvard or UChicago or MIT or Wharton or Hopkins vs. elite LAC.

10:14 -- I went to a public HS in a college town -- lots of writing and critical thinking and lively classrom discussions, mediocre science (though I think that's improved dramatically, judging by science contest results). But I was thinking less of my own HS experience than my kid's in a local "Big 3" -- in part because DC's experience is more recent and in part because IME, it's typically the parents of kids who went to schools like DC's that make the LACs are the gold standard argument. To me, it's more of the same, BTDT. And, yeah, I am talking about exceptionally good high schools, but my point is that the ideal HS and the ideal college should not look the same.