I go to a top LAC for history and stem. It is overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am currently attending a well-ranked liberal arts college for a double major in English and Physics. The small course sizes sounded nice at first, but my English courses have not really evolved past discussions of the same handful of themes (patriarchy/sex or gender, racism/exclusion, identity/perception). The professors are fine, but they are typically not doing active research that invites students, so I have to get creative (aka go to research universities). The department holds a few modernists, a single professor in literary criticism, and a complete lack of translation coursework. I cannot really say the experience has been much beyond discussion with mostly sleepy students, who do not at all care about the text, often not reading it either. I am taking a tutorial next semester, but I won't be holding my breath on increased rigor and interest.
The physics resources and faculty are amazing, but the reality is that getting into a top physics program requires top research experience and heavily biases those with graduate coursework and years of research.
Look, I love small classes and learning in a small community within an idyll, bucolic campus, but I don't think it is worth it over going to a good research university, where you get support for research and have more opportunities with nicher subspecialties.

Welcome to the real world.

[Anonymous]

Relevant article about Bowdoin College's lack of STEM resources:

https://bowdoinorient.com/2024/12/06/as-student-enrollment-trends-and-liberal-arts-values-collide-faculty-disagree-over-how-to-respond/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A family member works in a top 5 worldwide school for STEM in a position where the topic of undergrad study of prof children comes up often. The topic 3 destinations amongst that group’s children are LACs.

Np, my spouse is a Hopkins professor. He definitely strongly feels R1 schools are better than lacs for stem majors.

Was your spouse US educated? My spouse, also a T10 professor, doesn't get SLACs at all. He was educated in a country where SLACs don't exist. For many years, he didn't understand how they could be prestigious. Now, kids he has seen grow up are choosing SLACs/ seeing what they do after and he'd more aware.

SLACs are really small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"a complete lack of translation coursework"

why would an english department have "translation coursework"?

This is not a serious post.

Because English as a field has moved beyond literal English-only texts for decades now? Because liberal arts colleges typically don’t have comparative literature departments and hire inside the English department for that role? This is a silly response.

NP. If I want to major in English literature, I’m interested in studying texts written in English. If I’m interested in studying literature in general, or comparative literature, then that’s a different story, and I’d likely choose a school that has available majors that focus on those areas.

But English departments don’t need translation coursework. If a student wants that, they need to choose a more general literature major, not English literature.

[Anonymous]

Ops statement for top phd placement is true for math and psychology, but not other disciplines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I trust this Nobel prize winner more than anonymous trolls:
https://www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cech_article2.pdf

The data in that report is 30 years old! Great if you want to know which you should choose in 1995. Less helpful 30 years later.

[Anonymous]

These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"a complete lack of translation coursework"

why would an english department have "translation coursework"?

This is not a serious post.

Because English as a field has moved beyond literal English-only texts for decades now? Because liberal arts colleges typically don’t have comparative literature departments and hire inside the English department for that role? This is a silly response.

NP. If I want to major in English literature, I’m interested in studying texts written in English. If I’m interested in studying literature in general, or comparative literature, then that’s a different story, and I’d likely choose a school that has available majors that focus on those areas.

But English departments don’t need translation coursework. If a student wants that, they need to choose a more general literature major, not English literature.

English departments at LAC represent a lot more departments than those at R1s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

+1

agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

+1

agree

PhD productivity is based off actual degrees conferred and LACs overwhelmingly dominate the list of recipients per capita.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ops statement for top phd placement is true for math and psychology, but not other disciplines.

R1 top-ranked universities, whether public or private, are better for phD placement in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and all Engineering disciplines, for every LAC except the very top LACs (WAS). R1s that are mediocre do not show the same clear benefit in STEM phD placement over LACs, especially known academically rigorous T15 LACS. The R1 standard is not what it once was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

I'm the LAC booster (with concerns about some LACs) from earlier in the thread. This comment codifies my core general worry about LACs: the small classes and tutorial-like nurturing atmosphere are great, but at some point the budding scientist or scholar has to make it on his or her own. I don't doubt that the first-year experience may be enormously better at a LAC, but I suspect that the student who really is a candidate for an eventual PhD may be in better long-term shape having gone through undergrad in a way that more resembles the research culture of grad school. (Of course, it depends on the individual student. But my kid's probably going to choose a research university over a highly PhD-productive LAC for this reason, among others.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I trust this Nobel prize winner more than anonymous trolls:
https://www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cech_article2.pdf

Uh, that is a study about people who received PhDs between the years of 1991 and 1995. The youngest person in that cohort would be around 56, most would be in their 60s. How are the statistics for people that are nearing retirement (or are already retired) at all relevant to a young adult in the year 2025?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

Still trolling especially in light of copious data showing that LAC Phds are more successful at degree completion. Real data which is pretty clear on the subject. Try to be slightly credible before you try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

I'm the LAC booster (with concerns about some LACs) from earlier in the thread. This comment codifies my core general worry about LACs: the small classes and tutorial-like nurturing atmosphere are great, but at some point the budding scientist or scholar has to make it on his or her own. I don't doubt that the first-year experience may be enormously better at a LAC, but I suspect that the student who really is a candidate for an eventual PhD may be in better long-term shape having gone through undergrad in a way that more resembles the research culture of grad school. (Of course, it depends on the individual student. But my kid's probably going to choose a research university over a highly PhD-productive LAC for this reason, among others.)

Stem kids at LACs, also called PUI or primarily undergrad institutions, have a huge leg up in getting accepted to summer REUs, which prefer students from PUIs as well as underrepresented students. A subset of these REUs are quite prestigious, such as Amgen scholars and SULI, and all of them even the less prestigious include stipends and free housing.
Anyone at a LAC considering phD in a top stem program needs to have at least one REU on the resume to compete with top R1 students who get intensive research experience on their home campus