LACs strong in STEM vs Humanities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the alumni/friends/boosters on here for SLACs aren't presenting very well for the SLACs.

Honestly, if this is how you turn out, I hope my kids don't go to one of these schools.

Why do you care? Most of these people aren’t even connected to the institutions.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

These would also be strong for humanities.

Carleton MUCH LESS so compared to good lacs like Amherst.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

You are quite obviously not in science research and know little to nothing about it. There is nothing wrong with what was said.

What? I just told you why you’re wrong. Count the amount of buildings that make up those 4 main departments at a peer of Amherst like Pomona and you”ll see yourself that there is a lot more space at Pomona than Amherst, for example. Same is true for Bowdoin and Williams

Also I’m in the field of biophysics, please don’t lecture about science when you haven’t presented credentials yourself

Presenting “credentials” on an anonymous site?! What a joke, but for what it’s worth I’m intimately involved in science and research. If you are truly in research, then it’s quite sad or your’e just trolling

You have not made an argument, because I outlined clearly why you’re wrong.

You’ve outlined absolutely nothing except toe say you’re a biophysicist (if you even know what that is). You’re not even sure whom you’re responding to!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the alumni/friends/boosters on here for SLACs aren't presenting very well for the SLACs.

Honestly, if this is how you turn out, I hope my kids don't go to one of these schools.

SLACs are great but there are a few idiots on this thread. The Amherst booster is an embarrassment to the entire NESCAC.

Can’t be any worse than the Pomona loser who thinks more smaller buildings are better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By STEM, do you mean engineering?
Harvey mudd, Swarthmore, and sometimes people who also mention Bucknell, are very good for engineering students.

For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

Typically stem means hard science and mathematics or computer science for LACs not engineering.

There are many interpretations, for some it just means CS and math. It could also mean physics math and engineering. I personally would think chemistry and biology are also stem, but many don’t agree. That’s why I seek clarification from OP.

There is no “typically” answer for this.

Chemistry and biology are a part of a LAC core curriculum. The liberal arts are:

Life science (biology, neuroscience)
Physical science (physics, astronomy, physical geography, chemistry, earth science)
Formal science (logic, mathematics, statistics)
Humanities (philosophy, history, english literature, the arts)
Social science (economics, political science, human geography, linguistics, anthropology, psychology, sociology)

The broad aspects of STEM that are missing from a liberal arts education are engineering and technology.

According to a Hamilton site, its new computer science facility will offer "technology-equipped classrooms, high-speed computing capabilities, makerspace, drone, robotics, and electronics labs."

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

These would also be strong for humanities.

Carleton MUCH LESS so compared to good lacs like Amherst.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

You are quite obviously not in science research and know little to nothing about it. There is nothing wrong with what was said.

What? I just told you why you’re wrong. Count the amount of buildings that make up those 4 main departments at a peer of Amherst like Pomona and you”ll see yourself that there is a lot more space at Pomona than Amherst, for example. Same is true for Bowdoin and Williams

Also I’m in the field of biophysics, please don’t lecture about science when you haven’t presented credentials yourself

Presenting “credentials” on an anonymous site?! What a joke, but for what it’s worth I’m intimately involved in science and research. If you are truly in research, then it’s quite sad or your’e just trolling

You have not made an argument, because I outlined clearly why you’re wrong.

You’ve outlined absolutely nothing except toe say you’re a biophysicist (if you even know what that is). You’re not even sure whom you’re responding to!

It’s strange that you’d respond without answering the argument in the prior comment. I’d really wish people like you weren’t so dramatically dishonest, because I’m sure you have an actual point hidden somewhere.
That’s all I have “toe” say for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

These would also be strong for humanities.

Carleton MUCH LESS so compared to good lacs like Amherst.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

Space designed for collaborative encounters is a design feature of modern science facilities. Such collaboration will be enhanced when various science departments occupy the same building or are in linked buildings. Union (the top LAC in the Princeton Review site posted earlier) offers an excellent example of such a design.

https://www.turnerconstruction.com/projects/union-college-integrated-science-and-engineering-complex-isec

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the alumni/friends/boosters on here for SLACs aren't presenting very well for the SLACs.

Honestly, if this is how you turn out, I hope my kids don't go to one of these schools.

SLACs are great but there are a few idiots on this thread. The Amherst booster is an embarrassment to the entire NESCAC.

Can’t be any worse than the Pomona loser who thinks more smaller buildings are better

The argument is not more “smaller buildings” but more than 1 single building for very space intensive majors, The argument is clear that there is more space at peer institutions for majors because they aren’t constrained to a single building. Why you’ve gone so far to misinterpret it is the real question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

These would also be strong for humanities.

Carleton MUCH LESS so compared to good lacs like Amherst.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

Space designed for collaborative encounters is a design feature of modern science facilities. Such collaboration will be enhanced when various science departments occupy the same building or are in linked buildings. Union (the top LAC in the Princeton Review site posted earlier) offers an excellent example of such a design.

https://www.turnerconstruction.com/projects/union-college-integrated-science-and-engineering-complex-isec

1 central building isn’t advantageous for science research. It’s good to have collaborative buildings for like disciplines such as shared math and physics buildings, but psychology isn’t being benefited by close collaborations with physics or really even chemistry at all liberal arts college. If this was optimal design, large research universities wouldn’t have so many sprawling research centers and facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By STEM, do you mean engineering?
Harvey mudd, Swarthmore, and sometimes people who also mention Bucknell, are very good for engineering students.

For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

Typically stem means hard science and mathematics or computer science for LACs not engineering.

There are many interpretations, for some it just means CS and math. It could also mean physics math and engineering. I personally would think chemistry and biology are also stem, but many don’t agree. That’s why I seek clarification from OP.

There is no “typically” answer for this.

Chemistry and biology are a part of a LAC core curriculum. The liberal arts are:

Life science (biology, neuroscience)
Physical science (physics, astronomy, physical geography, chemistry, earth science)
Formal science (logic, mathematics, statistics)
Humanities (philosophy, history, english literature, the arts)
Social science (economics, political science, human geography, linguistics, anthropology, psychology, sociology)

The broad aspects of STEM that are missing from a liberal arts education are engineering and technology.

According to a Hamilton site, its new computer science facility will offer "technology-equipped classrooms, high-speed computing capabilities, makerspace, drone, robotics, and electronics labs."

Hamilton should be ashamed for not making it a shared building with physics, math, biology, chemistry, English, philosophy, and history! Optimal design!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the alumni/friends/boosters on here for SLACs aren't presenting very well for the SLACs.

Honestly, if this is how you turn out, I hope my kids don't go to one of these schools.

SLACs are great but there are a few idiots on this thread. The Amherst booster is an embarrassment to the entire NESCAC.

Can’t be any worse than the Pomona loser who thinks more smaller buildings are better

The argument is not more “smaller buildings” but more than 1 single building for very space intensive majors, The argument is clear that there is more space at peer institutions for majors because they aren’t constrained to a single building. Why you’ve gone so far to misinterpret it is the real question.

It is you who keeps moving the goalpost

[Anonymous]

As an opinion, I wouldn't regard a school as being broadly strong in sciences unless it offers a geosciences department. Some excellent LACs, such as Swarthmore, Grinnell and Reed, do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an opinion, I wouldn't regard a school as being broadly strong in sciences unless it offers a geosciences department. Some excellent LACs, such as Swarthmore, Grinnell and Reed, do not.

Why? Nothing uniquely important about geoscience. You could get a degree in chemistry and do an REU in geology and easily get into a good grad program in geology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the alumni/friends/boosters on here for SLACs aren't presenting very well for the SLACs.

Honestly, if this is how you turn out, I hope my kids don't go to one of these schools.

SLACs are great but there are a few idiots on this thread. The Amherst booster is an embarrassment to the entire NESCAC.

Can’t be any worse than the Pomona loser who thinks more smaller buildings are better

The argument is not more “smaller buildings” but more than 1 single building for very space intensive majors, The argument is clear that there is more space at peer institutions for majors because they aren’t constrained to a single building. Why you’ve gone so far to misinterpret it is the real question.

It is you who keeps moving the goalpost

By…you just are saying things without making any connections. Reported for trolling.

[Anonymous]

Oooh, so scared. It’s you who keeps changing tune about what is and what isn’t important for STEM. You seem to have your own alternative facts and can’t stand it when you’re wrong. If you’re in love with a school where the STEM program is so spread out, go for it. No one cares!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oooh, so scared. It’s you who keeps changing tune about what is and what isn’t important for STEM. You seem to have your own alternative facts and can’t stand it when you’re wrong. If you’re in love with a school where the STEM program is so spread out, go for it. No one cares!

You can’t consistently make an argument. Please shut up if you are just gonna throw around terms lazily without qualifying them.